help with disc due in 24 jhours

Tort Damages

Print

The overarching purpose of tort law is to provide remedies, usually in the form of damages (monetary awards), to persons injured by the civil wrongs of others. Damages awarded for tort violations include compensatory and punitive damages.

The aim of  compensatory damages is to place the injured party in the same position that party would have been in had the tort never been committed, that is, to make the injured party whole. Compensatory damages are sometimes categorized into two types: special and general compensatory damages.  Special damages are quantifiable monetary losses incurred by the injured party, such as the cost of replacing or repairing damaged property, medical costs, past lost wages and benefits, future lost wages and benefits, and other quantifiable costs resulting from the tort.  General damages, on the other hand, are not easily quantifiable and include pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of reputation, and loss of mental or physical capacity resulting from a tort.

In some egregious cases, courts also award  punitive damages. Punitive damages are intended to punish a tortfeasor (person who commits a tort) for engaging in particularly wanton or reckless conduct that reflects a disregard for the interests of others. Punitive damages are often limited by courts to approximately three times the amount of compensatory damages, in order to satisfy the due process requirements of the Constitution (exceeding these approximate amounts may be deemed an unconstitutional deprivation of another person’s property). Thus, punitive damages are reserved for the most egregious of tort cases, and appeals often follow when a trial court awards them. They are generally only available for intentional torts, although they are sometimes available for cases of gross negligence.

Law of Torts

Print

The legal system in the United States is a common-law system with civil law and criminal law components. The civil-law component of the US common-law system should not be confused with the civil-law system, which is a separate system of law originating in ancient Rome and adopted by most European countries. The US common-law system includes different procedures for redressing civil-law violations (e.g., the law of tort, contract, agency, employment, divorce, and business organizations) than for redressing criminal-law violations (e.g., larceny, murder, rape, and robbery).

Tort law, an important component of civil law within the US common-law system, generally encompasses situations where an individual’s conduct causes harm to another. A tort is literally translated from French as a  wrong. These wrongs give rise to claims in court, when a specific statutory or common-law tort is committed. When a tort is committed, one may seek monetary compensation (damages) for the tort in court.

Tort law may be divided into three broad categories of tort: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.  Intentional torts generally require that one “intended” to cause the consequences of the act. That is, one must have intended to perform the act that caused harm to another.  Negligence generally requires that one be at fault for committing the act. Negligence theory underlies many personal-injury actions, such as car accidents.  Strict liability torts require neither intent nor fault; simply causing harm to an individual while performing one of an enumerated list of strict liability torts gives rise to damages (even if a person did not intend the act and was not at fault for it).

Intentional torts often have counterparts within criminal law. For example, if Joe strikes Dave across the face with a stick, Joe may be liable for a civil battery and a criminal battery. The civil action for battery may result in Dave receiving compensation for the harm done to him, including costs of medical bills, pain and suffering, and compensation for work missed while in the hospital. Simultaneously, a criminal action may be brought against Dave for a criminal battery. The criminal action is not about compensation, but instead is about punishing Joe for committing a crime. Punishments for the crime may include jail time, fines (paid to the government), and community service.

Although some intentional torts have criminal counterparts, not all do. In some cases, a wrong against an individual is merely a civil wrong and has no criminal repercussions. Certain defamation claims, for example, may result in compensation but have no criminal counterpart, so will not result in a correlative criminal action. One very famous incident involving both civil and criminal claims is that of O.J. Simpson, who was tried criminally and found not guilty. However, O.J. Simpson was found civilly liable to the family members of the deceased and had to pay those families millions in compensation for the civil wrongs.

Business Criminal Law

Print

Criminal laws prohibit or require certain conduct such that violations of the laws would constitute an offense against the general public (society as a whole). Criminal law convictions may result in jail or prison sentences, fines (paid to the government), or, in some cases (in some states and federally), the death penalty.

The Constitution provides both state governments and the federal government with the power to pass and enforce criminal laws, and also places limitations and affirmative obligations on the government in relation to criminal defendants. That is, the Constitution sets the outermost boundaries of how the government can investigate, arrest, try, and sentence criminal defendants. The Constitution, through its Eighth Amendment, also sets the minimum requirements for the bail and prison conditions of criminal offenders.

Employment at Will

Print

Transcript

Employment at will is a doctrine of common law that allows either the employee or the employer to terminate an employment relationship at any time, for any reason, with or without notice, and even for a morally reprehensible reason, so long as the ending of the relationship does not fall into an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

Employment at will is the prevailing legal doctrine concerning employment relationship termination in 49 US states (not Montana). In the overwhelming majority of the United States, employment at will and its exceptions govern the rules by which one may legally terminate an employee.

The generally accepted exceptions to employment at will include

· express contract,

· implied contract,

· promissory estoppel,

· public policy violations, and

· good faith and fair dealing.

We discuss these five exceptions below.

Express Contract Exception

If an employer terminates an employee in violation of the terms of an express contract between the employer and employee, then the employee can sue the employer for breach of contract (and, in some states, wrongful termination).

For example, an employment contract guarantees that the employee will be employed by the employer for a definite duration of time, with cognizable boundaries, such as a "one-year period" or "for six months." The employer terminates the employee before the stated period has expired, and that termination is not otherwise permitted by the contract.

Likewise, consider a case where an employment contract states that an employee can be terminated only "for cause" or "for just cause," and the employee is terminated without cause.

Implied Contract Exception

Implied contracts are contracts created by the conduct of the parties, which include any representations or assurances made by the employer prior to or during the term of employment. In some states, an implied contract is an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

For example, if an employer provides an employee handbook to a new employee, the provisions in the handbook may be considered part of the contractual relationship. Often, such handbooks outline a procedure for performance review, discipline, and discharge of the employee. An employer who fails to live up to procedural obligations prior to discharging an employee could be liable.

Promissory Estoppel Exception

In many states, promissory estoppel acts as an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. That is, when an employer makes a promise to an employee of employment or a period of employment, and the employee relies on that promise to his detriment, and it leads to injustice, then an employee may be able to have that promise enforced regardless of employment at will.

For example, John is offered a job with Widget Co. He discusses with Widget's manager that, to take the job, he needs to move from California to New Jersey and give up an already lucrative position with benefits. The manager assures John that he will have gainful employment and a substantially larger income with Widget Co. for at least a year if he makes the move. In reliance on this promise, John quits his job and moves to New Jersey to begin work at Widget Co. After one week, John is laid off. Despite being an employee at will, John may be able to recover under the theory of promissory estoppel.

Public Policy Violations Exception

Most states in the United States prohibit an employer from firing an employee if the reason for the action violates some readily accepted public policy. This prohibition prevents an employer from terminating an employee for exercising a legal right, including a right contained in state and federal laws; or for failing to perform an illegal act for the employer.

Firing an employee for performing some public duty (showing up to jury duty), for exposing illegal conduct (such as reporting violation of some law to the employer or a government agency), or for exercising her rights as a US or state citizen (such as voting) are all against public policy.

This exception to employment at will encompasses the inability to terminate an employee if doing so would violate her state or federal statutory rights. If an employee is terminated because of her race, this may be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and so an otherwise at-will employee would have a claim against the employer for violating a federal statute.

Moreover, it is against public policy to terminate an employee for refusing to commit an illegal act, such as a crime.

Good Faith and Fair Dealing Exception

A minority of states impose upon the employer a duty to exercise good faith and fair dealing in regard to all employees. This doctrine, to varying degrees, means that an employer must treat an employee fairly in the decision to fire her. This generally means that an employer would violate these duties in firing an employee without due cause or justification.

The preceding five generally accepted exceptions to employment at will allow injured parties to seek recovery even in the face of the employment-at-will doctrine. As such, they limit the circumstances by which an employer can terminate an employee.

Licenses and Attributions

Business Law: An Introduction, by TheBusinessProfessor.com, Jason M. Gordon & Colleagues has been adapted with permission from Jason M. Gordon. © Business Professor, LLC. 

Course Resource

Print

Blue Mood Clothing, Inc

Notice: Contains Confidential Information

Blue Mood Clothing, Inc., a company devoted to producing positive, mood-altering apparel and various other clothing items, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Colossal Corporation. Blue Mood Clothing's most famous and best-selling product is the Breezer—a skin-tight shirt with an air ventilation system that allows the breeze to pass through the shirt. Colossal Corporation has uncovered an incident of theft at Blue Mood Clothing: approximately one month ago, over five thousand Breezers were stolen from Blue Mood Clothing's Atlantic City, New Jersey, warehouse.

Shortly after the theft was discovered, Colossal Corporation's internal investigator, Bill, found an online advertisement for the sale of exactly five thousand Breezers, described as shirts with an "air ventilation system that allows a cooling breeze to pass through the shirt." Bill called the contact on the website and set up a meeting with the seller, Nick Johnson. When Bill, under the guise of being an interested purchaser of the Breezers, inquired about Nick's distributor, Nick did not hesitate to reveal that he purchased the Breezers from Juanita Winfrey, his long-time business associate. Bill inspected the five thousand Breezers, and confirmed they were indeed the same Breezer products that were stolen from the warehouse. He then requested a price quote from Nick and asked Nick to hold the products for him for seven days. Nick agreed.

That same afternoon, before additional investigation, Bill sent an email intended solely to be sent to the vice president of Blue Mood Clothing, Inc., but he accidentally hit "reply all" to a previous message, and sent the email to every employee at Blue Mood Clothing, Inc., over two hundred people. The email stated, among other things, that "Nick Johnson was a thief and had an extensive criminal record in New Jersey. He stole the five thousand Breezers. I will continue my investigation tomorrow." This statement was not true. Nick’s old friend from high school, who worked at Blue Mood Clothing, Inc., forwarded this message to Nick, who became worried about his business and reputation.

Bill arranged a meeting with Juanita the very next day, during which he posed as an interested clothing buyer. He asked Juanita if she had any Breezer distributors she could recommend. Juanita said that she works directly with a Blue Mood Clothing sales agent named Alex Ridgefield, and that she recently purchased five thousand Breezers from him at a fair price. Juanita also said that Alex is quite interested in expanding his business with her, and would provide Bill with a great deal.

After his meeting with Juanita, Bill checked the personnel records at Blue Mood Clothing and identified Alex Ridgefield as a low-level warehouse employee who has been with the company for over 20 years. Alex's personnel record is spotless, with no prior personnel issues and no complaints. Alex is an at-will employee who is in charge of night security at the Atlantic City warehouse and has no history in sales. As a night security guard, Alex is responsible for protecting the warehouse from theft and is not permitted to sell products. After further investigation, Bill found company emails between Juanita and Alex in which Alex posed as a sales agent. Reading the emails, it became obvious that neither Juanita nor Nick knew that the five thousand Breezers were stolen, and that both bought the Breezers for fair-market value. Bill then collected video from all of Alex’s shifts and was able to locate a film of Alex packing the Breezers into his personal minivan and driving them out of the warehouse parking lot.

Your task is to research the legal issues surrounding the stolen property. It is up to you to decipher which laws have been broken and deduce any potential remedies. Vice President Dodger wants you to prepare a narrated PowerPoint to present this information to the senior leadership team. Because of the sensitive nature of this case, the vice president has asked you to operate with total confidentiality and without involving the legal department.

Introduction to the Legal Environment of Business

Print

The Legal Environment: Courts, Alternative Dispute Resolution, and Agency

by Rosemary Hartigan and Paula O'Callaghan, Professors, UMGC

Why Should I Care about the Law?

Why do businesspeople need to know anything about the law? Some people think of lawyers in business as a necessary evil. There is some truth to the "necessary" part: if everyone were scrupulously honest and had photographic memories regarding all statements uttered that could constitute promises, perhaps lawyers wouldn't be needed. But, alas, we are mere mortals with failing memories and sometimes failing ethics.

A Systems View of the Roles of the Lawyer and the Manager

One view of the respective roles of the lawyer and the manager in a business is that the lawyer should guide the manager in analyzing risk—this is in the lawyer's training, and it's the lawyer's responsibility to accurately convey the nature of legal risks to the client; however, it is up to the  manager to make the final business call.

Generally speaking, lawyers are inherently conservative when it comes to risk. Managers can't abdicate responsibility for making the business call. This is one of the main reasons for managers to have legal literacy. You need to know when you need legal advice, and then what to do with it. Sometimes, basic legal knowledge is necessary on the front lines of dealing with customers and coworkers.

Knowing something about the law can assist you in prevention. Legal analysis skills help you to avert lawsuits and other unpleasantness so that you can stay focused on running your business. However, there will be instances in which you have to bring a legal-related matter to closure. Perhaps you've taken over from an executive who has left the department or company and left behind a problem that requires a legal solution. Or, you did something that triggered a legal response from a customer or vendor. If you know the relevant legal rules for your area of business, you'll know when it's appropriate to involve legal counsel.

Let's begin with a basic overview of the two types of law.

Differences between Civil and Criminal Law

American society highly values ingenuity and entrepreneurship, but there are legal limits on the conduct of commerce. Some of these limits are  statutory, which means that a law-making body has enacted a specific law to regulate a specific activity (e.g., the Sherman Act statute regulating antitrust). Some of these legal limits are found in the  common law (e.g., tort law imposing liability on an infinite variety of behaviors). Most of the legal limits on business fall into the category of civil law .

One big difference between civil and criminal law is in the potential penalties.  Civil law liability carries penalties that are monetary—so-called damages. The culpable party pays damages in an amount the court believes will make the wronged party whole. This contrasts with criminal law, where the possible penalties are limits on personal freedom (such as incarceration or death), although monetary penalties are also possible (such as a fine payable to the government or restitution to the victim).

There is one major exception to the rule that business contracts do not involve criminal penalties for breach: this is in government contracting. Because so many students at UMGC have employment that involves contracts with the US government in some manner, this is often a point of confusion.

Government contracting is a special circumstance where the contracts involve civil law, yet breach of contract potentially involves criminal penalties. The criminal penalties can include jail time for serious violations. Those of you who work in this area probably have attended or will attend a professional development seminar about contract compliance in which you learn the particulars of your contractual obligations.

Trend Developments in Business Law

The past 20 years have seen a rise in the criminalization of business law. While it's still true that no one goes to prison for breaking the terms of a contract (notable exception: government contracting), there has been a marked increase in the number of business-related activities that carry possible criminal penalties.

Business activities that are punishable by criminal penalties (in addition to fines and damages) are known as  white-collar crimes. Many of you are familiar with famous cases involving business people—Martha Stewart (ImClone), Kenneth Lay (Enron), Dennis Kozlowski (Tyco), and, of course, Bernie Madoff. Those businesspeople got themselves into the criminal justice system by committing fraud, lying to federal authorities, or otherwise invoking specific laws to deter commercial crimes such as insider trading of stock. The possible penalties for white-collar crime do include imprisonment as well as fines and damages.

When you see a businessperson in handcuffs doing the "perp walk," ask yourself, "What law has allegedly been broken?" Typically, there will be a law (statute) or a regulation (e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] rule) that allegedly has been transgressed.