BUSINESS LAW I CRIMES AND INTENTIONAL TORTS ASSIGNMENT
1. Jay is charged with the commission of a crime. For a conviction, the standard to find Jay guilty is
a. beyond all doubt
b. beyond a reasonable doubt
c. clear and convincing evidence
d. a preponderance of the evidence
2. John is arrested on suspicion of the commission of a crime. Individuals who are arrested must be told of their right to
a. confront witnesses
b. protection against unreasonable searches
c. remain silent
d. trial by jury
3. Joe shoves Kay, who falls and suffers a concussion. This is an intentional tort
a. if Joe had a bad motive for shoving Kay.
b. if Joe intended to shove Kay.
c. if Kay was afraid of Joe.
d. only if Joe intended that Kay suffer a concussion.
4. Gil sends a letter to Holly in which he falsely accuses her of embezzling. This is defamation only if the letter is read by
a. a public figure
b. any third figure
c. Holly
d. Holly’s employer
5. Internet Services, Inc. (ISI), is an Internet service provider. ISI does not create, but disseminates, a defamatory statement by Jill, its customer, about Ron. Liability for the remark may be imposed on
a. ISI and Jill
b. ISI or Jill, but not both
c. ISI only
d. Jill only
6. Online Company (OC) is an Internet service provider. Ads Unlimited, Inc.,spamsOC’s customers, some of whom then cancel OC’s services. Ads Unlimited is liable for
a. battery
b. conversion
c. infliction of emotional distress
d. trespass to personal property
ANSWER ANY FOUR OF THE FOLLOWING SEVEN QUESTIONS WITH COMPLETE ANSWERS AND EXPLANATIONS:
7. Betty England worked at a Dairy Queen restaurant owned by S&M Foods in Tallulah, Louisiana. One day while she was at work, her manager, Larry Garley, became upset when several incorrectly prepared hamburgers were returned by a customer. Garley expressed his dissatisfaction by throwing a hamburger that hit England on the leg. Assume that while Garley was not trying to hit England with the hamburger he was aware that she was substantially certain to be hit as a result of his action. Also, assume that England was not harmed by the hamburger. England sued Garley for battery. Did Garley have the necessary intent for battery liability? Does England’s not suffering harm defeat her battery claim? Why or why not? [England v. S&M Foods, Inc.,511 So.2d 1313 (La. Ct. App. 1987)
8. If a student takes another student’s business law textbook as a practical joke and hides it for several days before the final examination, has a tort been committed? Which tort, if any?
9. During the spring and summer of 1999, Edward and Geneva Irvine received numerous “hang-up” phone calls, including three calls in the middle of the night. With the help of their local phone company, the Irvines learned that many of the calls were from the tele-marketing department of the Akron Beacon Journal in Akron, Ohio. The Beacon’s sales force was equipped with an automatic dialing machine. During business hours, the dialer was used to maximize productivity by calling multiple phone numbers at once and connecting a call to a sales representative only after it was answered. After business hours, the Beacon programmed its dialer to dial a list of disconnected numbers to determine whether they had been reconnected. If the dialer detected a ring, it recorded the information and dropped the call. If the dialer crashed, which it did frequently, it redialed the entire list. The Irvines filed a suit in an Ohio state court against the Beacon and others, alleging in part an invasion of privacy. In whose favor should the court rule and why? How did the court actually rule? [Irvine c. Akron Beacon Journal, 147 Ohio App. 3d 428, 770 N.E.2d 1105 (9 Dist. 2002)]
10. Wayne T. Schmuck was a used-car distributor who purchased used cars, rolled back their odometers, and sold them to Wisconsin retail dealers at prices artificially inflated by the low-mileage readings. Those dealers, not knowing about the false odometers and inflated prices, resold the cars to customers and finished the transactions by mailing title application forms to the state on behalf of the customers. Schmuck was charged with 12 counts of mail fraud even though he physically did no mailing. The district court convicted and the circuit court affirmed. How did the Supreme Court rule? Why? [Schmuck v. United States, 109 S. Ct. 1443 (1989)]
11. Jamie Messenger was an aspiring 14-year-old model. Young and Modern magazine hired Messenger for a shoot in New York. At the shoot, she took a variety of photographs and gave consent for YM to use the photos, but she never obtained written consent from a parent or guardian. YM used the photos of Messenger to illustrate a Love Crisis column. Her pictures were next to an article describing a young woman’s sexual misfortunes. The article detailed an event in which a 14-year-old got drunk and had sex with a boyfriend and two of his friends. Captions reading, “I got trashed and had sex with three guys” and “Afraid you are pregnant” accompanied her pictures. Messenger brought suit against YM for invasion of privacy, specifically false light. Does she have a compelling case? Why or why not? How did the court actually rule? [Messenger v. Gruner, 94 N.Y. 2d 436, 727 N.E. 2d 549 (2000)]
12. Stacy Stanton has appealed the dismissal of her state-law defamation action against Metro Corp., which arises out of the publication of her photograph alongside an article entitled "The Mating Habits of the Suburban High School Teenager." The district court dismissed Stanton's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted based on the conclusion that the publication was not defamatory as a matter of law.
Metro Corporation publishes Boston magazine, a monthly general interest publication that ran the article in question in its May 2003 issue. The cover of the magazine refers to the article with the phrase, "Fast Times at Silver Lake High: Teen Sex in the Suburbs." Inside, Stanton is one of five young people pictured in a photograph that occupies the entire first page of the article and half of the facing page. The photograph, taken at a high school dance, depicts its three male and two female subjects in formal attire, sitting and standing near an open exit door in the background. Stanton's image occupies most of the left-hand side of the photograph, where she appears standing, with her face and most of her body fully visible. Although three of the subjects are smoking cigarettes, and another holds a plastic cup, Stanton simply looks at the camera, smiling faintly.
Just above the byline, and just below the main article text, the following appears in italicized type: "The photos on these pages are from an award-winning five-year project on teen sexuality taken by photojournalist Dan Habib. The individuals pictured are unrelated to the people or events described in this story. The names of the teenagers interviewed for this story have been changed." These words are rendered in the smallest font on the page, which is otherwise devoid of text that explains the photograph or identifies its subjects. Stanton alleges that she did not participate in any such "project on teen sexuality." The first few paragraphs of the article relate a conversation among four teenagers from a suburban Boston high school, including "Nicole," described as a "pretty Keri Russell-look-alike . . ." and "Christine, a curly-haired pixie in the under-90 weight range . . . ." Nicole is quoted as saying, "All we ever do is go hang out and get drunk, like, all the time, and you know, hook up," not generally with steady boyfriends or girlfriends, but "with whoever [sic]" after drinking at small gatherings. The article goes on to explain that the euphemism "hook up," as teens use it, "can mean anything from sexual intercourse to oral sex to serious touching or just kissing."
Should Stacy Stanton have won her appeal? Why or why not? What was the actual case result on appeal? [Stanton v. Metro Corp., 438 F.3d 119 (1st Cir. 2006)]
13.
Hamidi was a former engineer at Intel's Automotive Group when September 1990, he was injured in a car accident while returning from a business trip on behalf of Intel. He returned to work for 18 months until his worsening physical condition caused him to take a medical leave on January 27, 1992 at the advice of Intel's doctors.[3] He remained on medical leave until he was fired on April 17, 1995 for failing to return to work after the medical leave.
After termination, Hamidi formed a support group for former and current employees of Intel: Associated X-Employees of Intel (AXE-Intel), later renamed Former And Current Employees of Intel (FACE-Intel). Over a 21-Month period, Hamidi sent six waves of e-mails to Intel employees on behalf of the organization. The e-mails were critical of Intel's employment practices and encouraged employees to become involved in FACE-Intel. Each e-mail stated that the recipient could notify the sender to remove them from the mailing list, and Hamidi stopped sending e-mails to those who requested. Although some of the e-mails were blocked by Intel's internal filters, Hamidi succeeded in evading blocking efforts by using different sending computers.
In March, 1998 Intel demanded that Hamidi and FACE-Intel stop sending e-mails, but he sent another mass e-mail in September, 1998. Intel sued Hamidi and FACE-Intel pleading trespass to chattel and nuisance seeking damages and an injunction against further messages. Intel later dismissed its nuisance claim and waived the demand for damages. The trial court granted Intel's request for summary judgment and set a permanent injunction against Hamidi and FACE-Intel from sending unsolicited e-mails to the company. Hamidi appealed the decision, and with one justice dissenting, the appellate court found that Intel "showed he was disrupting its business by using its property and therefore is entitled to injunctive relief based on a theory of trespass to chattels."
What should the California Supreme Court have decided? What did it actually decide? [Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 71 P.3d 296 (2003)]
1