|← Contemporary Issues in Business||Wal-Mart’s Business Strategy →|
This violation is a matter of laws of funds embezzlement. He also commits forgery where he fakes the signatures of the deceased. The crime may also be treated as fraud. Moreover, abuse of discretion is clear in this case. John has acted in a corrupt manner. It is an intentional tort that is punishable under the laws of the United States. John may also be charged with conversion since he deprives the owner of his right to property. The penalty for fraud is an order to return all monies that the accused took from the sufferers. Moreover, the court may recommend imprisonment and a fine.
One night being out in the town, he stops by a competitor’s club where he hears the sweetest songbird singing. He approaches the singer after the performance and tries to persuade her to leave this club since he will pay her more. She accepts. The owner of the nightclub sees her talking to John, comes out and asks him to get out. John replies that he will leave when he will be ready. The owner is aware of John’s reputation and thus backs off. John finally leaves and goes home. The fact that comes out clearly in this case is that John threatened the owner of the nightclub. This is after he tells the club owner that he knows where his family lives. Moreover, John commits an offence of tortious interference in business. He stops the singer to induce her to enter into the contract with him. The court might order that John pays for damages suffered by the club owner.
In the case of the tiger, the issue of strict liability comes out. John is liable for negligence. After he leaves the nightclub, he goes home where he sees his pet tiger that earlier got out when a power shortage released his gate and allowed it strolling the neighborhood. While the tiger was outdoors, the bully of the neighborhood 16-years-old Frank saw him and started throwing rocks at the tiger. The tiger, in order to protect itself, pounced on Frank and slapped him with his paws on his backside a couple of times. The issue of negligence is clear in this case. One of the issues that come out clearly is that the tiger comes out of the cage when there is power shortage. This does not justify the tiger entering other people’s compounds. John should have considered such facts before taming the pet. He should have known that it might happen. This is negligence; and as we can see, it puts the life of a minor in trouble. The minor did not think of possible troubles that would happen while throwing sticks at the tiger, though the results of his act are oblivious. The court may hold John responsible for the attack on Frank and impose a penalty as it so wishes. The court may rule that John pays for damages.
The department of agriculture also denies John a chance to grow wheat on his farm. They do not cite any mistakes that John has committed. John grows wheat for his personal consumption. He can sue the department because of interfering with his consumer rights. The Federation Arbitration Act favors arbitration. John can opt to use arbitration in this case too.
In another case, John hears a knock on his door and opens it to find there a man who presents a petition. It is a Petition for damages for the boy that the tiger slapped earlier. John is angry and takes a walk in the neighborhood where he runs across the parents of Frank. He tells them that they have to get to the hospital because a bus has hit their son. They become upset and immediately leave. John tells a lie to Frank’s parents. He subjects them to duress. Such a move is wrong as it may lead the parents to making wrong decisions as they are working under pressure. These parents may decide to sue John for the undue pressure he subjects them. He knows well that he is lying about their son’s condition.
In a next incidence, John is stopped by one of his business establishments. He intends to check on how his money is doing. He sees a man in his counting room slipping a few hundred into his pocket. John grabs a bat walks up behind the man and cracks his skull. Then he says, “Nobody steals from me”. This is a wrong move. It is an assault. John should have taken the right action. He should report the matter to the police. Hitting the victim is assault. He should pay for damage done. John cannot defend himself by saying that the victim attacked him first because this is lie. He will most certainly pay for damage or engage in an out of court settlement with the victim. Later, he may decide to sue the victim for stealing. These are separate crime incidences.
John also buys a note from Shady Sam, a friend of his, who sells used cars. John knows that Shady is an underhanded dealer, but does not care. The note he buys is for a car Shady sold that had faulty brakes. The buyer refuses to pay on the note. This is a breach of contract, which can be challenged in court. The court may award that the buyer pays for the money contained in the promissory note. John sells the note to Al who knows neither about Shady nor the trouble with the car. Shady buys the note from Al and sues the buyer. After buying the promissory note, John becomes a holder in due course. The promissory note must contain a promise to pay. This makes it enforceable. The court will take into account the material facts of the case. The issue of fraudulent misinterpretation is clear in this case. This is after John buys the note from Shady, who does not inform him that the initial promiser had refused to pay for it. Shady thus commits an offence against John. The effect of such misinterpretation is that it makes the contract void. According to law, this recognizes as rescission. Moreover, it may attract damages. Under the tort of deceit, the court calculates the damages as those of a fraudulent transaction.
There are various laws that come up from the case study. John has done several mistakes. Each of them attracts different penalties in a court.