Legal issues

Are Deed. Charlie and Bella as substantially prob adequate for the compositors causal agent against the sign of the zodiac by their client Mr.. Laurent.? 2. If so how further responsible atomic number 18 the new(prenominal) spouses for Jakes mistake? 3. If no other(a) partner liable, what excludes them? 4. Are in that location both defenses to any of the members of the firm from creation liable to the virtuesuit? Law leagues confederacy Act 1891 (SLD) Nature of Partnership Determination of existence of partnership common venture partnership obligation of Incoming partner Dissolution of partnershipsCompany Law Khan v housemaid 2000 Nature of partnership Cox v Carlson 1916 Joint venture and partnership how the partnerships are named and what sustains them Hammerer benignity Ltd v Egg 1996 Liability of retiring partner does a recently retired partner have any liability to the losses or turn a boodles 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 embark on the activity in question (text, 328).This Is In regards to Bella who claimed she had no liability towards the fairnesssuit against the firm as she had only been working there a short while and was non 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 republicd 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 contributed any capital upon joining the firm but still took on the Job of a partner at the firm through assistance. foreign the teddy of Cox (text,331 ) whereby ACH party was found with different liabilities for their parts of the Joint venture Magic Zillions Is a deferent lineament as they were chronic with the business In an ef fort to get a profit. Where there is profit sharing and a more integrated business structure (text. 30) as n the case 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 moldiness contribute equally towards losses (text,335) and in this case the loss is the rectitudesuit 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 beforehand their retirement (text,343), this case of the Liability of retiring partner waterfall on Charlie. Charlie has since retired from the business due to stress and ill-health and has limited p ersonal cash in hand ( facts), although Charlie had been retired but still part of the entity during the accident it disqualifies him from not being liable for the lawsuit against Magic Zillions as he was a partner accordingly when the accident happened.Conclusion On the balance of Probabilities the Magistrates court of law would find that Deed, Charlie, Jake as well as Bella are all partners of Magic Zillions due to the evidence and backup cases mentioned above and all would have to contribute to the $30,000 to the complainant, Mr.. Laurent to cover the injures he go about upon entering the premises of the suspects, Magic Zillions level-headed Issues protective covering Awareness and train Program (for Nancy Johnson and other likely situated employees)Nancy Johnson and other employees were terminated from their jobs by the last maker of the order, US Bancorp Comprehensive Welfare emolument Plan Committee. The sheath of Johnsons termination of employment is willful and realise misconduct when Johnson admission chargeed the files of her supervisory program containing the 2002 performance level of the companys employees.When Johnson was denied the breakage compensation (she was able to entree a file that contains the proposed merging of US Bancorp with another(prenominal) company some employees would be terminated with severance payment, shut out those who were involved in raw misconduct), she call for for a summary belief to the soil court. The district court opted Johnson arguing that the company did not establish a protection nurture system that would prevent employees from accessing the files of the company. The perpetration though wrote an orison to the circuit court arguing that the court erred in its reading material of the render 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 call willful and unprocessed misconduct, the administr ator of the plan can apply these terms to similar situations. The severance payment to Johnson was therefore denied.Information security awareness and fosterage programs then should be designed found on the so-called computing device Fraud and roast Act of 1984. The statute criminalizes unauthorized access to a protect data processor with the intent to obtain development, defraud, obtain anything of value or cause prostitute 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 conference purposes (as in the case of the complainant) and for interstate interaction. Without authorization from the department of Defense or the Foreign Affairs, accessing development from said institutions is deemed mislabeled.Also read Explain Legal Issues, Policies and Procedures Relevant to legal opinionSharing of passwords, computer fraud, and damage of essential federal official trainin g are likewise deemed illegal. The law was extended to include close computers. In the case of the suspect (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 learning from the companys database. The employees must be firstly acquainted ( by memorandum) of the sites allowed to use during office work.Security Awareness and provision Program (for Scott Moulton)The complainant, Scott Moulton criminate the defendant of trenchant the formers mesh topology of clients. Defendant claims statements from Moulton concerning the defendant were defamatory. First is the statement make by Moulton to C.J. Johns, schooling systems manager for the Cherokee Countys Sheriffs Office (December 19, 1999) that defendant had created security risks and that defendants lucre employees were stupid. The second is the statements made by Moulton that the way defenda nt planned to come to 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 plainly opinions. People may agree or differ with the statements made. The court though grant the defendant summary judgment for the trouble of the plaintiff to splinter 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 politics activity websites (contractors duly approved to negotiate for the body structure of website connections between establishment 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 infor mation, 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 play along the guidelines of the law on internet probing of intergovernmental offices. Hence, law analysts saw the law as the near Balearic safeguard of the government from hackers.Security Awareness and information Program (for Dewey Watkins)The plaintiff, Dewey Watkins requested the district court to cancel a computer access inscribe 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 i nscribe 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. at that place was no certainty 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 clear 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 range link to the public in general. This constitutes government programs, strategical social and sparing 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 r evealing 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 fall in States regulate Court of the territorial dominion of Minnesota. phratry 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 readiness 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 that 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 th e 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 statute 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 inc lude 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 information 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 secu rity 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. 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 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 su mmary 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 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. 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 Ap peals 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 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.