Paper Example on Mr. Watson's Case: Equitable Claim, Breach of Contract & More

Scenario 1

Watson's case has nothing much to do with the civil case or the alternative dispute resolution (ADR). ADR entails a conflict that exists for two or more people. In this case, the conflict is between a business and the plaintiff. Therefore, for this case to be made in the civil court, there is a need for four issues. The issues include an equitable claim, breach of contract, as well as the claim of the landlord or tenant and the claim of a tort. Mr. Watson, the plaintiff, is likely to claim that Jabil came up with a tort. On the other hand, the defendant who is Jabil will come with equitable claims as well as breach of contract for Mr. Watson.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Watson feels that his termination was unfair. Although it is not sure why he feels so, he claims that it from the contract and policy for hire thus knows that his actions were not wrong to lead to the termination. Watson was playing slot machines during the company time. Besides, he was using the computers for the company as well as time for the company to send a personal email. From the company policy, violating such a policy would result in immediate termination (Find Law, 2019, 6). As a result, Jabil's actions to fire Mr. Watson are within the legal grounds. However, Jabil had an option to get Watson to breach the contract, which is based on the fact that one party fails to perform the obligations laid down in the agreement.

Mr. Watson could claim that Jabil exposed him to emotional distress as well as the loss of wages. He believes that his firing was unfair. As a result, he attempts to come up with all sorts of excuses or tort to get back his job. However, Mr. Watson lacks a claim in his case. However, the thing that Mr. Watson could be possible to sue Jabil for is escorting off the premises. It could happen if Jabil harmed Watson. Therefore, Mr. Watson has lost and should concentrate on getting another better job.

Scenario 2: Constitutional Rights

The officer Crespo did not violate any Watson's constitutional rights. The officer followed the right procedure as laid down by the constitution. First, he requested Watson to take a Breathalyzer test, which he refused. From the fourth amendment, the population's privilege should be secure for all the population, including the houses as well as papers. They should base on the impacts against irrational pursuits as well as seizure. They should not be abused in any way, and warrants should be issues upon justification that are reasonable as held by the Oath (Intentional Torts, 2019, 2). This is mainly depicted through the place to need to be looked at with things being seized. Therefore, when the officer discovered Watson's slurring behavior in terms of words as well as the engine aptitudes that were poor. As a result of leaving the vehicle, he was right to ask him to take a Breathalyzer test. After Watson had refused, Crespo searched the car and found a beer can on the seat. While looking through Watson's automobile, Crespo noticed a stacked handgun as well as an everyday pack of pills resembling Oxy-Contin. The procedures were done as they are supposed to be done. Officer Crespo found the cause of searching in Watson's car.

However, the officer had to express the diverse rights that belong to Mr. Watson with due respect basing on the activity stop that applies in the United States. Firstly, Mr. Watson has the right to decline or agree to pursue a degree. But if the officer notices a criminal intent like the one Crespo witnesses. Therefore, Crespo has the right to execute an inquiry into Watson's car. Although Watson possesses the privilege of requesting consent to clear out, the most significant thing is Officer Crespo has the opportunity to administer the test. M.R. Watson could record the correspondence in connection with Crespo, Crespo is an officer of the Law thus has a right to conduct a Breathalyzer test due to the behaviors of Watson that were demonstrated through slurring of words. Besides, he has the right to look through Watson's vehicle when he witnessed an open container and a handgun.

Scenario 3: Torts

Fitch committed a general tort. She also committed character defamation. After the termination of Mr. Watson based on theft, Fitch did not have any right to talk about Mr. Watson. Slander entails saying something regarding someone else that damages his or her character-in most cases, using the term slander, which results in the report that seems not to be true. Therefore, for this scenario, it is illegal-the explanation for defamation based on defamatory. For defamatory, a decision made has to profess realities instead of individuals jumping into conclusion. Therefore, Fitch committed a tort. The findings focused on the claim that Fitch was deceiving based on the way she made other think of Mr. Watson. It is considered as law infringement with most businesses that could not conclusively confirm the reason behind the behaviors of Mr. Watson.

Deception entails double-dealing, which is a tort. Fitch actions are dedicated to tort. She is found to blame Mr. Watson erroneously for burglary. From the Law, any person who is incorrectly blaming another person based on corruption is subject to jail authorizes as laid down in the Law. Moreover, this may lead to slander that deserves common cures.

A tort entails committing a wrong against another individual. The tort laws help to compensate for the parties that suffer a loss from wrongful actions. Defamation of a character happens; however, it entails making a false statement intentionally about another person (Barrett & Farahany, 2019). It might be considered an oral slander in case the comment was said instead of being written. The defamation of character in this scenario arises from the offensive actions from Fitch that were upsetting to Mr. Watson. It caused damage as well as the reputation of Mr. Watson. Although it is evident that Fitch had the right to discuss on termination of Watson as well as the reasons for termination, she had no right to given him names such as a drug addict or a lazy person.

Scenario 4: Intellectual Property

Talley violates the Law to intellectual property. Besides, she was found to violate copyright law. The copyright law entails secretly dispersing various materials on the internet. It incorporates abstract works such as new articles as well as a blog posting. The violation of the intellectual property law was due to Talley copying the images from several websites and pasting them in Jabil's sites. After the law student working as an intern in the company owned by Jabil had gone through the new website, it was clear that Talley was using images and text without permission, thus violating the intellectual property. However, in his view, Talley claimed that all the information on the internet is free. Therefore, since she revealed her wrongfulness as she attempted to humiliate the lawyer by telling him to go back to school. Besides, posting pictures for other companies would make that company sue the company that Talley belongs to.

Although the internet may be a free resource, there is a need for citing the sources, or else, the copyright laws might be violated. Lack of citation shows that Talley violated the copyright laws. From intellectual property, copyright grants the publication and production rights with other rights, such as literary work (Logan, 2014, 179). Talley violated the Copyright Laws as she failed to cite the sources of her work. The work showed that she copied directly, passing it to the website, thus found to be stolen information (Find Law, 2019, 125). In this scenario, Talley seems to have an oversight on revamping the website of the company. This was through the actions that saw Talley take pictures and text from various websites while posting them on the website of the company. Even after she was informed, she felt that she required no permission since the information on the internet was free.

References

Barrett & Farahany Justice at Work (2019), Defamation Of Character Explained. Public Organization Review 78- 78. Retrieved from https://www.justiceatwork.com/resources/2013/december/defamation-of-character-explained/

Find Law (2019), Accidents and Injuries, Intention Infliction of Emotional Distress, 123-312. Retrieved from https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress.html

Intentional Torts (2019), South University Online, 1-4. Retrieved from https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/le/content/43719/viewContent/1627695/View

Find Law (2019), Copyright Law, 2-7. Retrieved from https://corporate.findlaw.com/intellectualproperty/copyright-law.html

Tamika Logan. (2014). B.H. v. Easton Area Sch. Dist. The Urban Lawyer, (1), 179. Retrieved from https://www.thecampuscommon.com/library/ezproxy/ticketdemocs.asp?sch=suo&turl=https://search-ebscohost-com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.24392788&site=eds-live