Legal issues

Are Deed. Charlie and Bella too liable for the jurisprudencesuit against the firm by their client Mr.. Laurent.? 2. If so how far responsible ar the other partners for Jakes mistake? 3. If no other partner liable, what excludes them? 4. Are there any defenses to any of the members of the firm from creation liable to the lawsuit? Law federations confederacy Act 1891 (SLD) Nature of Partnership Determination of existence of partnership Joint venture partnership Liability of influent partner Dissolution of partnershipsCompany Law Khan v Amah 2000 Nature of partnership Cox v Carlson 1916 Joint venture and partnership how the partnerships are created and what sustains them Hammerer Pity Ltd v formal 1996 Liability of retiring partner does a recently retired partner own any liability to the spilles or profits of the firm? Application The rule s that persons who agree to carry on a business activity as a joint venture d non become partners until they actually guess on the act ivity in question (text, 328).This Is In regards to Bella who claimed she had no liability towards the lawsuit against the firm as she had only been working there a myopic while and was not at work the time the accident happened. Bella had however been working there with a view for profit (Text, 328) which happened to be the activity in question. With this same(p) question in mind t has been stated that It is possible for a person to be a partner even though they do not have a claim to the share of the profit (text,328).Bella had not contri just nowed any capital upon joining the firm just still took on the art of a partner at the firm through assistance. Unlike the case of Cox (text,331 ) whereby ACH party was found with different liabilities for their parts of the Joint venture prank Zillions Is a deferent case as they were continuing with the business In an effort to get a profit. Where there is profit sharing and a much integrated business structure (text. 30) as n the cas e of Magic Zillions it means that there was an aim for profit which is what considers the determination of existence of a Partnership amongst all four persons. In order for a partner to have been qualified as retired there has to be written confirmation that Charlie had actually been excluded from his entity and all its business, but the case does not well specify this. The implied 1 OFF partner it means that they must contribute equally towards losses (text,335) and in this case the loss is the lawsuit which is aimed at everyone a part of Magic Zillions. A partner who retires from a firm does not thereby cease to be liable for the partnership debts incurred before their retirement (text,343), this case of the Liability of retiring partner falls on Charlie. Charlie has since retired from the business due to stress and ill-health and has limited personal funds ( facts), although Charlie had been retired but still part of the entity during the accident it disqualifies him from not be ing liable for the lawsuit against Magic Zillions as he was a partner then when the accident happened.Conclusion On the balance of Probabilities the Magistrates philander would find that Deed, Charlie, Jake as well as Bella are all partners of Magic Zillions due to the evidence and supporting cases mentioned above and all would have to contribute to the $30,000 to the complainant, Mr.. Laurent to cover the injures he faced upon entering the premises of the defendants, Magic ZillionsLegal IssuesSecurity ken and Training Program (for Nancy Johnson and other similarly locate employees)Nancy Johnson and other employees were all over from their jobs by the administrator of the company, US Bancorp Comprehensive Welfare Benefit Plan Committee. The Ca do of Johnsons termination of employment is entrustful and rude misconduct when Johnson introductioned the files of her supervisor containing the 2002 performance level of the companys employees.When Johnson was denied the severance p ayment (she was able to access a file that contains the proposed merging of US Bancorp with other company nearly employees would be terminated with severance payment, except those who were involved in gross misconduct), she requested for a summary judgment to the district court. The district court raise Johnson lay out that the company did not establish a hostage culture system that would prevent employees from accessing the files of the company. The committee though wrote an appeal to the rope court arguing that the court erred in its interpretation of the provisions of the plan. The circuit court agreed to the arguments of the committee, arguing that since no official interpretation as to the use of the name voluntary and gross misconduct, the administrator of the plan rear end apply these terms to similar situations. The severance payment to Johnson was therefore denied.Information bail awareness and fostering programs then should be designed based on the so-called Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984. The statute criminalizes unauthorized access to a saved development processing system with the intent to obtain information, defraud, obtain anything of value or cause damage to a computer (Security Awareness Laws, http//www.massachusetts.edu/lawsfaq/faq.cfm7). The so-called protected computer is a computer used for foreign or communication purposes (as in the case of the complainant) and for interstate inter movement. Without authorization from the Department of Defense or the remote Affairs, accessing information from utter institutions is deemed hot.Also read Explain Legal Issues, Policies and Procedures Relevant to AssessmentSharing of passwords, computer fraud, and damage of essential federal information are also deemed illegal. The law was extended to include private computers. In the case of the defendant (the corporation), it must institute narrower definitions as to the terms willful and gross misconduct. This will definitely als o narrow the options for employees who are accessing important information from the companys database. The employees must be first acquainted ( by memorandum) of the sites allowed to use during friendly function work.Security Awareness and Training Program (for Scott Moulton)The plaintiff, Scott Moulton accused the defendant of trenchant the formers network of clients. Defendant claims statements from Moulton concerning the defendant were defamatory. First is the statement make by Moulton to C.J. Johns, information systems manager for the Cherokee Countys Sheriffs Office (December 19, 1999) that defendant had created security risks and that defendants network employees were stupid. The second is the statements made by Moulton that the way defendant be after to connect the natural law Department to two systems created a security risk from the internet. Lastly, statements from the plaintiff said that defendants network had created a security risk.The plaintiff though argued that these statements were tho opinions. People may agree or disagree with the statements made. The court though granted the defendant summary judgment for the failure of the plaintiff to run a put test in the project. The plaintiff was also granted a summary judgment for the failure of the defendant to reduce the security risks.The US sexual congress passed a bill on July 2004, stating that internet probing of contractors to government activity websites (contractors duly approved to negotiate for the construction of website connections between government offices) can only be legal on three counts 1) probing does not in any way create security risks for the government office involved, 2) the probing would not leave behind to malversation of any public information, and 3) such probing must be requested by the client government office, with approval from its head office. though the case was a posteriori since the bill was passed before the case was filed, it would be good for governmen t offices to follow the guidelines of the law on internet probing of intergovernmental offices. Hence, law analysts cut the law as the most Balearic safeguard of the government from hackers.Security Awareness and Training Program (for Dewey Watkins)The plaintiff, Dewey Watkins requested the district court to cancel a computer access economy that had been assigned to him and was being used (with the supervisors approval) by another authorized employee. The code provided access to confidential records maintained for Tennessees Medicaid Program. The plaintiff argued that the action of the supervisor violated the confidentiality provision of the state law. The plaintiff also accused EDS of terminating his employment when the former refused to participate in the illegal conduct. The circuit court however affirmed the decision of the district court to grant summary judgment in favor of EDS, for the reason that Tennessee law does not conflict with the prevalent provision of the Confiden tiality Law.There was no proof that other employees also use the computer access code, and if there was such a case, it would be legal. It is noteworthy that the same law discussed in case 1 also applies in this case. Sharing of passwords to access public documents is clearly prohibited by law. nary(prenominal)etheless, although the terms public information was the focus of the case, it should be noted that public information are information that have direct link to the public in general. This constitutes government programs, strategic social and economic planning, and of course interstate activities. Security awareness programs must be based on the definition of public information in order to rationalise any instances of sharing passwords or revealing information from government-locked and secured database.ReferencesNancy J. Johnson v. US Bancorp united States woo of Appeals for the Eight Circuit. Appeal from the United States District Court of the District of Minnesota. fami ly line 9, 2005.Security Awareness Laws. 2006. University of Massachusetts. URL http//www.massachusetts.edu/lawsfaq/faq.cfm7. Retrieved September 14, 2007.Scott Allen Moulton and Network Installation Computer Services, Inc., Plaintiffs v. VC3, Defendant. United States District Court, Atlanta Division.Watkins v. EDS. NO. 100-CV-434-TWT. United States Court of Appeals No. 03-6353. United states Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. November 2, 2004.Legal IssuesSecurity Awareness and Training Program (for Nancy Johnson and other similarly situated employees)Nancy Johnson and other employees were terminated from their jobs by the administrator of the company, US Bancorp Comprehensive Welfare Benefit Plan Committee. The Cause of Johnsons termination of employment is willful and gross misconduct when Johnson accessed the files of her supervisor containing the 2002 performance level of the companys employees.When Johnson was denied the severance payment (she was able to access a file tha t contains the proposed merging of US Bancorp with another company some employees would be terminated with severance payment, except those who were involved in gross misconduct), she requested for a summary judgment to the district court. The district court favored Johnson arguing that the company did not establish a security information system that would prevent employees from accessing the files of the company. The committee though wrote an appeal to the circuit court arguing that the court erred in its interpretation of the provisions of the plan. The circuit court agreed to the arguments of the committee, arguing that since no official interpretation as to the use of the terms willful and gross misconduct, the administrator of the plan can apply these terms to similar situations. The severance payment to Johnson was therefore denied.Information security awareness and training programs then should be designed based on the so-called Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984. The statu te criminalizes unauthorized access to a protected computer with the intent to obtain information, defraud, obtain anything of value or cause damage to a computer (Security Awareness Laws, http//www.massachusetts.edu/lawsfaq/faq.cfm7). The so-called protected computer is a computer used for foreign or communication purposes (as in the case of the plaintiff) and for interstate interaction. Without authorization from the Department of Defense or the Foreign Affairs, accessing information from said institutions is deemed illegal.Also read Explain Legal Issues, Policies and Procedures Relevant to AssessmentSharing of passwords, computer fraud, and damage of essential federal information are also deemed illegal. The law was extended to include private computers. In the case of the defendant (the corporation), it must institute narrower definitions as to the terms willful and gross misconduct. This will definitely also narrow the options for employees who are accessing important informati on from the companys database. The employees must be first acquainted ( by memorandum) of the sites allowed to use during office work.Security Awareness and Training Program (for Scott Moulton)The plaintiff, Scott Moulton accused the defendant of probing the formers network of clients. Defendant claims statements from Moulton concerning the defendant were defamatory. First is the statement made by Moulton to C.J. Johns, information systems manager for the Cherokee Countys Sheriffs Office (December 19, 1999) that defendant had created security risks and that defendants network employees were stupid. The second is the statements made by Moulton that the way defendant planned to connect the Police Department to two systems created a security risk from the internet. Lastly, statements from the plaintiff said that defendants network had created a security risk.The plaintiff though argued that these statements were merely opinions. People may agree or disagree with the statements made. Th e court though granted the defendant summary judgment for the failure of the plaintiff to run a put test in the project. The plaintiff was also granted a summary judgment for the failure of the defendant to reduce the security risks.The US Congress passed a bill on July 2004, stating that internet probing of contractors to government websites (contractors duly approved to negotiate for the construction of website connections between government offices) can only be legal on three counts 1) probing does not in any way create security risks for the government office involved, 2) the probing would not result to malversation of any public information, and 3) such probing must be requested by the client government office, with approval from its head office. Though the case was a posteriori since the bill was passed before the case was filed, it would be good for government offices to follow the guidelines of the law on internet probing of intergovernmental offices. Hence, law analysts saw the law as the most Balearic safeguard of the government from hackers.Security Awareness and Training Program (for Dewey Watkins)The plaintiff, Dewey Watkins requested the district court to cancel a computer access code that had been assigned to him and was being used (with the supervisors approval) by another authorized employee. The code provided access to confidential records maintained for Tennessees Medicaid Program. The plaintiff argued that the action of the supervisor violated the confidentiality provision of the state law. The plaintiff also accused EDS of terminating his employment when the former refused to participate in the illegal conduct. The circuit court however affirmed the decision of the district court to grant summary judgment in favor of EDS, for the reason that Tennessee law does not conflict with the general provision of the Confidentiality Law.There was no proof that other employees also use the computer access code, and if there was such a case, it would b e legal. It is noteworthy that the same law discussed in case 1 also applies in this case. Sharing of passwords to access public documents is clearly prohibited by law. Nonetheless, although the terms public information was the focus of the case, it should be noted that public information are information that have direct link to the public in general. This constitutes government programs, strategic social and economic planning, and of course interstate activities. Security awareness programs must be based on the definition of public information in order to vindicate any instances of sharing passwords or revealing information from government-locked and secured database.ReferencesNancy J. Johnson v. US Bancorp United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit. Appeal from the United States District Court of the District of Minnesota. September 9, 2005.Security Awareness Laws. 2006. University of Massachusetts. URL http//www.massachusetts.edu/lawsfaq/faq.cfm7. Retrieved September 1 4, 2007.Scott Allen Moulton and Network Installation Computer Services, Inc., Plaintiffs v. VC3, Defendant. United States District Court, Atlanta Division.Watkins v. EDS. NO. 100-CV-434-TWT. United States Court of Appeals No. 03-6353. United states Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. November 2, 2004.