Please make the correction! Business Law Make sure you understand the case

Business Law

Name

Course

Tutor

Date

You need to introduce the case here meaning what happened. Who did what? The other guy did good here he was just saying applicant not employee. Mention the name of the people. What really happened? The court where the trial is conducted normally determines who the defendant is and who is the plaintiff or the applicant. The applicant in the trial may differ when it comes to the court of appeal or even the Supreme Court. In this case I am dissatisfied with the judgment and the findings of the trial court therefore, the venue is the court of appeal (where exactly is the place? Where is the court of appeal?) which is the court tasked with the appeals from the trial court. In this court I will be representing the applicants who were the defendants at the trial court.

The appeal therefore lays both on both facts and the law. The facts in question (not correct grammar) is who divulged the passwords to the manager? The appeals in law could lie on the question if it is one of the members of the group who divulged the password could it be a waiver of their right to privacy? The defendants could succeed on the assertion that the divulsion (what do you mean by this word? There is a red mark here. Did you mean Delusion) of the information by one of their members amounted to waiver their right to privacy and they could not claim from their manager but rather from their member who divulged the information. The other issue for appeal is on punitive damages which are reserve to circumstances where certain actions may recidivate. An employer has a responsibility unto his business to ensure that it runs well. This may be interpreted to mean that the defendants were not acting maliciously but on legitimate business reasons.

The relevant law in the above scenario is both statute law and precedents. The relevant statutes are mainly the provisions of Federal Stored Communications Act and the Wire Tap Act. The court further used the precedent in Keyishian v. Board of Regents of University of State of NY to help interprate the right to privacy.

Under (is this word necessary or you just want to say “The rule of law”)the rule of law, is to be respected by all and administered equally. The threshold for determining what is right or wrong is pegged on the law. The SCA Act addresses compelled and voluntary  disclosure of stored electronic and wire communications and transactional records held by a third party internet service provider. This means that all their information should be kept private and no one should access their protected information without their consent. The defendants’ argument was that since St. Jean who is said to have reported the existence of the group to the Hillstone manager was an authorized user, and then there is no liability under the statutes based on the exception (Miller, 2014). Besides that, in the freedom of speech part, the defendant also argued that the company was a private employer not a state actor and so the constitutional obligations can only be directed at state action. In addition to that, they argued that even if the plaintiffs were employees in the public sector, their speech is not protected since it did not talk about a public concern issue. The argument that was never adduced and would indeed be a reasonable argument was that disclosure by a member of a group of his password meant that they had waived their right of privacy under the act. Further, the defendants were entitled to protect their business interests. This begs the question (what do you mean by begs is that the right word or do you mean brings) does the right to privacy outweigh the right of the owner of a business to protect his interests? it is my contention that this is not the case.

Furthermore, they pointed out the undisputed fact that most of the posts in the chat group included derogatory remarks on both the management and the customers in reference to drug abuse which is a bad thing for them to do. As for the invasion of privacy, which was among the counts on the restaurant, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs failed to identify public policy source, which underlie the claim. Besides that, it was not yet established whether or not St. Jean voluntarily provided authorization for the defendant to gain accesses to the group information. For the count of violation of common law tort, the defendants argued that St. Jean authorized the viewing of the website since she was an authorized user of the group chat. Besides that most of the information on the group was public hence there was no privacy intrusion (Clarkson, 2)

My position is fair and equitable as it enables the owners of businesses to do everything within their power to ensure that the businesses prosper. This includes not limiting their power to protect their business interest, it is within public interest that owners of business should not be too tied up by statutory provisions as to render them unable to protect (is this correct) their business privacy or reputation where the need be.

The biblical position is that employees shall be loyal to their ‘masters’ and that they should not do anything detrimental to their employers business interests. Keeping a group that its work it to critic the work place is not only against the biblical teachings but also unethical in employment set up. The court should therefore find merit in the arguments by the defendants. (you did not have to do this part as I mentioned in the instructions also where are the issues in this case).

References

Keyishian v. Board of Regents of University of State of NY, 345 F.2d 236 (2d Cir. 1965).

Clarkson, K. W., Miller, R., & Cross, F. (2014). Business law: Text and cases.

Miller, R. L. R., & Cross, F. (2014). The legal environment of business.