The Counterfeit Access Device and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Chapter 8:

Question No. 2:

The Counterfeit Access Device and Computer Fraud and abuse Act or CADCFA Act has categorically placed the provision of the law against authorised access and use of federal and private computers. The penalties under CADCFA Act are of 5 to 21 years of imprisonment. Mr. Wang used his computer to pass on trade secrets to Gordon Eubanks, Symantec’s Chief. Unauthorised access to the federal and personal computer and the data contained in it is part of the theft. The use of the computer in the unauthorised manner is part of trespassing and misdemeanour. Ethics can be defined as the act of person against the law or which is not right. Here, Mr. Wang used his computer to pass on trade secrets to Gordon Eubanks, Symantec’s Chief. The case is not only unethical but also illegal. Mr. Wang was not authorised to pass the trade secret to Gordon Eubanks, Symantec’s Chief. The passing of the trade secrets amounts to be unethical. The information or the trade secrets were passed by Mr. Wang to Gordon Eubanks, Symantec’s Chief by using computer device. Had the information been in the head of Mr. Wang, he would not have used the computers to pass on the trade secrets to another person. There is no point thinking about the fact that Mr. Wang would not do such acts in future. The acts were done intentionally and no one can guarantee the good behaviours of Mr. Wang in future.

Question No. 5:

The causing of death of another person due reckless behaviour comes under involuntary manslaughter. The owner of the construction firm William Lattarulo charged with manslaughter as one of his construction worker suffered injury and died during digging. The charge against William Lattarulo was that he did not hire a consultant to oversee the digging work. In this case Mr. Ortega’s co-worker and the consultant warned Mr. William Lattarulo that the trench was unsafe and needed support but Mr. Lattarulo did not care. The careless behaviour of Mr. William Lattarulo resulted into loss of precious life of Mr. Ortega. The gross negligence of Mr. Lattarulo amounts to wilful or depraved indifference to human life. Therefore, Mr. Lattarulo is rightly charged with second degree murder.

Question No. 6:

Two sections of the RICO act are important for analysis the case. The section 1962 (a) of RICO act says that it would be unlawful if one person receives income from racketeering activity and invest the part of the money for his own benefit (Carlan, Nored, & Downey, 2011). The section 1962 (c) says that it would be unlawful if a person associated or employed by any organisation actively pursues activities that affects the interstate and foreign commerce. Here, Bernard Saul took the delivery of the auto parts and sold of a portion of the auto parts for his own benefits. It was an illegal activity from the point of view of the RICO act and Bernard Saul and A P Walter Company shall be charged for the same crime under RICO act.

Question No. 8:

The term extortion is the matter of contention in this case. The definition of extortion suggests that obtaining of the property or money from another and with his consent induced wrongfully and threatened force or violence. The inspector is responsible for the asking money to provide the permit of favourable inspection comes under the extortion criteria. The RICO act is applicable to that matter. Therefore, the inspectors of New York City Department of the Health are liable to be charged with the extortion act and the section 1962 (a) of RICO act.

Question No. 9:

Mens Rea is not applicable for the criminal wrong based on the accident. The application of the Mens Rea is applicable only if the person involved in the accident was warned earlier. In this case Jason Jones was not was not warned earlier. The gross negligence of Jason Jones resulted in death of John and Carole Hall. Wilful or depraved indifference to human life was the result of the act of Jason Jones. But he was not aware of the fact that use of cell phone could cause accident. Therefore Manslaughter cannot be made applicable in this case (Badar, 2013).

Chapter 9:

Question 2:

Douglas Margreiter was severally injured in New Orleans on the night of April 6, 1976. He sued the Monteleone Hotel on the ground that the suspected used the elevator of the hotel and injured him. The hotel owners fought the case on the ground that he was intoxicated and met his fate. If it was proved during the Douglas Margreiter was correctly pointing out that two men broke down to his room and used the elevator then hotel is liable under the tort act. The negligence of the hotel resulted into the horrific incident. Therefore, Douglas Margreiter is right to seek compensation for the injury caused in the room of the hotel (Goldberg & Zipursky, 2010).

Question 3:

The shopkeeper’s privilege is to see that person suspected of shoplifting has committed the crime. The shop keeper has to have the reasonable ground to believe the fact and swift investigation has to be conducted after such incidents. The suspected person has to be detained within the premises or within the vicinity of the shop. The privilege will end if the shop keeps fails to prove that the person committed the crime and the privilege will end. The charging of fine and holding of the identification card is not with in the shop keepers privileges.

Question 7:

The contention of Wal-Mart was right. The store pre-empted the incident and called police. The police went back satisfied but suddenly the crown broke the glasses and went violent that resulted into death of a worker of Wall-Mart. In no way Wall-Mart was responsible. Wall-Mart was apprehensive about such situation. Therefore the fine of $7000 is inappropriate. Wall-Mart was not in breach of duty. They have policies for crowed control and created $400000 fund to compensate trampling victims.

Chapter 12:

Question 2:

The offer has to be made by one party to another. The primary part of the contract is offer and acceptance of the offer. The US contract act says that the offer and the acceptance of the offer have to be in writing in case of sale of goods. The hybrid contracts also need to be in writing. The offer is there but it was not properly accepeted or agreed upon. The contract was not properly written therefore it’s not contract under US contract act. The acceptance of the offer will be in writing and properly signed by one party.

Question 5:

1. Not a contract. Both the parties have to be sure about the offer and acceptance of the contract. As A was aware of the fact that A mailed the revocation of the contract.
2. Offeree has right to accept or reject the order. Once the offer is accepted, it leaves the right to reject the offer. But in this case it is contract on 04.9.2010.
3. It is contract. The revocation of the offer can be exercised before acceptance.

References:

Badar, M. E. (2013). The Concept of Mens Rea in International Criminal Law: The Case for a Unified Approach; https://books.google.co.in/books?id=WITbBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&dq=mens+rea&hl=en&sa=X&ei=h0wdVdaEMY-VuASfh4HwBw&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=mens rea&f=false . Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing. Carlan, P., Nored, L., & Downey, R. (2011). An Introduction to Criminal Law; https://books.google.co.in/books?id=75m64KF4l_4C&pg=PA170&dq=rico+act&hl=en&sa=X&ei=10IdVdTCOIHJuASrvYDQAQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=rico act&f=false. London: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Goldberg, J. C., & Zipursky, B. C. (2010). The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Torts; https://books.google.co.in/books?id=tNMobSiZ7DAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=tort+in+us&hl=en&sa=X&ei=60wdVY6TKNG9ugSxj4DwAw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=tort in us&f=false. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cite this page