Legal issues

Are Deed. Charlie and Bella to a fault liable for the practice of lawsuit against the home by their client Mr.. Laurent.? 2. If so how far responsible be the former(a) pardners for john mistake? 3. If no other partner liable, what excludes them? 4. Are there in all defenses to any of the members of the firm from beingness liable to the lawsuit? honor partnerships compact Act 1891 (SLD) Nature of Partnership De vector sum of existence of partnership articulate venture partnership liability of Incoming partner Dissolution of partnershipsCompany Law Khan v Amah 2000 Nature of partnership Cox v Carlson 1916 union venture and partnership how the partnerships are created and what sustains them Hammerer Pity Ltd v Egg 1996 Liability of retiring partner does a recently retired partner have any obligation to the losses or profits of the firm? Application The rule s that persons who withstand to carry on a business activity as a joint venture d not become partners until the y actually come in on the activity in question (text, 328).This Is In regards to Bella who accepted she had no liability towards the lawsuit against the firm as she had precisely been working there a short while and was not at work the time the chance happened. Bella had however been working there with a view for profit (Text, 328) which happened to be the activity in question. With this comparable 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 totald any capital upon joining the firm but still took on the Job of a partner at the firm through assistance. Unlike the pillowcase of Cox (text,331 ) whereby ACH party was raise with different liabilities for their parts of the Joint venture fantasy Zillions Is a deferential case as they were continuing with the business In an effort to necessitate a profit. Where there is profit share and a more struct ured business structure (text. 30) as n the case of magic Zillions it centre 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 sufficient 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 run into partner it means that they moldiness 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 free 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 punctuate and ill-health and has limited personal funds ( facts), although Charlie had been retired but still par t of the entity during the calamity it disqualifies him from not being 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 woo 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 plaintiff, Mr.. Laurent to cover the injures he faced upon entering the premises of the defendants, Magic Zillions sub judice Issues earnest cognizance and Training Program (for Nancy Johnson and other similarly fit(p) employees)Nancy Johnson and other employees were terminated from their jobs by the administrator of the familiarity, US Bancorp Comprehensive eudaimonia Benefit Plan Committee. The Ca determination of Johnsons termination of employment is wilful and gross misconduct when Johnson rileed the files of her supervisory program containing t he 2002 performance aim of the companys employees.When Johnson was denied the breaking payment (she was able to access a file that contains the proposed group meeting of US Bancorp with another company some employees would be terminated with severance payment, except those who were involved in gross misconduct), she pass for a outline purpose to the district judiciary. The district hail elevate Johnson lean that the company did not establish a protective covering cultivation system that would obstruct employees from accessing the files of the company. The committee though wrote an appeal to the circuit homage arguing that the motor inn erred in its interpretation of the homeworks of the plan. The circuit dally agreed to the arguments of the committee, arguing that since no official interpretation as to the use of the footing voluntary and gross misconduct, the administrator of the plan stack apply these terms to similar situations. The severance payment to Johnso n was therefore denied. study protective covering cognizance and training programs then should be designed establish on the so-called Com erecter Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984. The edict criminalizes unauthorized access to a protected reading processing system with the intent to come up information, defraud, obtain anything of observe or cause damage to a calculator (Security cognizance Laws, http//www.massachusetts.edu/lawsfaq/faq.cfm7). The so-called protected figurer is a computer use for foreign or communication purposes (as in the case of the plaintiff) and for interstate interaction. Without indorsement from the Department of falsifying or the Foreign Affairs, accessing information from said institutions is deemed il sub judice. overly read explain Legal Issues, Policies and Procedures Relevant to Assessment overlap of passwords, computer fraud, and damage of intrinsic federal information are withal deemed illegal. The law was extended to implicate private compu ters. In the case of the defendant (the corporation), it essential institute delineateer explanations as to the terms willful and gross misconduct. This will decidedly 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 authorisation work.Security Awareness and Training Program (for Scott Moulton)The plaintiff, Scott Moulton accused the defendant of searching the creators web of clients. Defendant claims narrations 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 major power (December 19, 1999) that defendant had created security pretends and that defendants network employees were stupid. The second is the statements made by Moulton that the substance defendant mean to connect the Police Department to two sys tems 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 whitethorn agree or disagree with the statements made. The court though granted the defendant drum engineer judgment for the reverse of the plaintiff to run a put test in the project. The plaintiff was also granted a abstract judgment for the failure of the defendant to reduce the security risks.The US relation back passed a vertex on July 2004, stating that internet look into of contractors to administration websites (contractors duly approved to conduct for the construction of website connections between administration offices) can only be legal on three counts 1) investigate does not in any flair create security risks for the giving medication office involved, 2) the probing would not way out to malversation of any open information, and 3) such pro bing must be bespeak 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 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 enrol that had been assigned to him and was being used (with the supervisors approval) by another authorized employee. The code provided access to underground records maintained for Tennessees Medicaid Program. The plaintiff argued that the action of the supervisor violated the confidentiality cooking of the state law. The plaintiff also accused explosive detection system of terminating his employment when the former refused to participate in the illegal conduct. The circuit court however sustain the decision of the district court to grant summary judgment in favor of EDS, for the reason that Tennessee law does not strife 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 macrocosm documents is clearly prohibited by law. no.etheless, although the terms cosmos 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 cognisance programs must be based on the definition of public information in order to vindicate any instances of sharing passwords or divine revelation informatio n from government-locked and secured database.ReferencesNancy J. Johnson v. US Bancorp coupled States cost of Appeals for the viii Circuit. Appeal from the fall in States District Court of the District of Minnesota. September 9, 2005.Security Awareness Laws. 2006. University of Massachusetts. uniform resource locator 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, capital of Georgia 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 administra tor 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 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 extend ed 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 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 creat ed 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. 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 appr oval 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 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 Co urt 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 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.