The Counterfeit Access Device and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Chapter 8:

Question No. 2:

The Counterfeit Access Device and Computer Fraud and maltreatment Act or CADCFA Act has flatly placed the proviso of the jurisprudence against authorized entree and usage of federal and private computing machines. The punishments under CADCFA Act are of 5 to 21 old ages of imprisonment. Mr. Wang used his computing machine to go through on trade secrets to Gordon Eubanks, Symantec’s Chief.

Unauthorized entree to the federal and personal computing machine and the informations contained in it is portion of the larceny. The usage of the computing machine in the unauthorized mode is portion of intruding and misdemeanors.

Ethical motives can be defined as the act of individual against the jurisprudence or which is non right. Here, Mr. Wang used his computing machine to go through on trade secrets to Gordon Eubanks, Symantec’s Chief. The instance is non merely unethical but besides illegal. Mr. Wang was non authorised to go through 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 utilizing computing machine device. Had the information been in the caput of Mr. Wang, he would non hold used the computing machines to go through on the trade secrets to another individual.

There is no point believing about the fact that Mr. Wang would non make such Acts of the Apostless in future. The Acts of the Apostless were done deliberately and no 1 can vouch the good behavior of Mr. Wang in future.

Question No. 5:

The causation of decease of another individual due reckless behaviour comes under nonvoluntary manslaughter. The proprietor of the building house William Lattarulo charged with manslaughter as one of his building worker suffered hurt and died during excavation. The charge against William Lattarulo was that he did non engage a adviser to supervise the excavation work.

In this instance Mr. Ortega’s colleague and the adviser warned Mr. William Lattarulo that the trench was insecure and needful support but Mr. Lattarulo did non care. The careless behavior of Mr. William Lattarulo resulted into loss of cherished life of Mr. Ortega. The gross carelessness of Mr. Lattarulo amounts to wilful or depraved indifference to human life. Therefore, Mr. Lattarulo is justly charged with 2nd degree slaying.

ALSO READ  The significance of Disability Anti-Discrimination Laws

Question No. 6:

Two subdivisions of the RICO act are of import for analysis the instance. The subdivision 1962 ( a ) of RICO act says that it would be improper if one individual receives income from racketeering activity and put the portion of the money for his ain benefit ( Carlan, Nored, & A ; Downey, 2011 ) .

The subdivision 1962 ( degree Celsius ) says that it would be improper if a individual associated or employed by any administration actively pursues activities that affects the interstate and foreign commercialism.

Here, Bernard Saul took the bringing of the car parts and sold of a part of the car parts for his ain benefits. It was an illegal activity from the point of position of the RICO act and Bernard Saul and A P Walter Company shall be charged for the same offense under RICO act.

Question No. 8:

The term extortion is the affair of contention in this instance. The definition of extortion suggests that obtaining of the belongings or money from another and with his consent induced wrongfully and threatened force or force. The inspector is responsible for the inquiring money to supply the license of favorable review comes under the extortion standards. The RICO act is applicable to that affair. Therefore, the inspectors of New York City Department of the Health are apt to be charged with the extortion act and the subdivision 1962 ( a ) of RICO act.

Question No. 9:

Mens Rea is non applicable for the felon incorrect based on the accident. The application of the Mens Rea is applicable merely if the individual involved in the accident was warned before. In this instance Jason Jones was non was non warned earlier. The gross carelessness of Jason Jones resulted in decease of John and Carole Hall. Wilful or depraved indifference to human life was the consequence of the act of Jason Jones. But he was non cognizant of the fact that usage of cell phone could do accident. Therefore Manslaughter can non be made applicable in this instance ( Badar, 2013 ) .

ALSO READ  Efforts Taken By Dnata Marketing Essay

Chapter 9:

Question 2:

Douglas Margreiter was independently injured in New Orleans on the dark of April 6, 1976. He sued the Monteleone Hotel on the land that the suspected used the lift of the hotel and injured him. The hotel proprietors fought the instance on the land that he was intoxicated and met his destiny. If it was proved during the Douglas Margreiter was right indicating out that two work forces broke down to his room and used the lift so hotel is apt under the civil wrong act. The carelessness of the hotel resulted into the hideous incident. Therefore, Douglas Margreiter is right to seek compensation for the hurt caused in the room of the hotel ( Goldberg & A ; Zipursky, 2010 ) .

Question 3:

The shopkeeper’s privilege is to see that individual suspected of shrinkage has committed the offense. The store keeper has to hold the sensible land to believe the fact and Swift probe has to be conducted after such incidents. The suspected individual has to be detained within the premises or within the locality of the store. The privilege will stop if the store keeps fails to turn out that the individual committed the offense and the privilege will stop. The charging of all right and retention of the designation card is non with in the store keepers privileges.

Question 7:

The contention of Wal-Mart was right. The shop pre-empted the incident and called constabularies. The constabulary went back satisfied but all of a sudden the Crown broke the spectacless and went violent that resulted into decease of a worker of Wall-Mart. In no manner Wall-Mart was responsible. Wall-Mart was discerning about such state of affairs. Therefore the mulct of $ 7000 is inappropriate. Wall-Mart was non in breach of responsibility. They have policies for crowed control and created $ 400000 fund to counterbalance trample victims.

ALSO READ  China’s secret cyberterrorism

Chapter 12:

Question 2:

The offer has to be made by one party to another. The primary portion of the contract is offer and credence of the offer. The US contract act says that the offer and the credence of the offer have to be in composing in instance of sale of goods. The intercrossed contracts besides need to be in composing. The offer is at that place but it was non decently accepeted or agreed upon. The contract was non decently written hence it’s non contract under US contract act. The credence of the offer will be in composing and decently signed by one party.

Question 5:

  1. Not a contract. Both the parties have to be certain about the offer and credence of the contract. As A was cognizant of the fact that A mailed the annulment 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 instance it is contract on 04.9.2010.
  3. It is contract. The annulment of the offer can be exercised before credence.


Badar, M. E. ( 2013 ) .The Concept of Mens Rea in International Criminal Law: The Case for a Unified Approach ;hypertext transfer protocol: // id=WITbBAAAQBAJ & A ; pg=PA27 & A ; dq=mens+rea & A ; hl=en & A ; sa=X & A ; ei=h0wdVdaEMY-VuASfh4HwBw & A ; ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ # v=onepage & A ; q=mens rea & A ; f=false.Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Carlan, P. , Nored, L. , & A ; Downey, R. ( 2011 ) .An Introduction to Criminal Law ;hypertext transfer protocol: // id=75m64KF4l_4C & A ; pg=PA170 & A ; dq=rico+act & A ; hl=en & A ; sa=X & A ; ei=10IdVdTCOIHJuASrvYDQAQ & A ; ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw # v=onepage & A ; q=rico act & A ; f=false.London: Jones & A ; Bartlett Learning.

Goldberg, J. C. , & A ; Zipursky, B. C. ( 2010 ) .The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Torts ;hypertext transfer protocol: // id=tNMobSiZ7DAC & A ; printsec=frontcover & A ; dq=tort+in+us & A ; hl=en & A ; sa=X & A ; ei=60wdVY6TKNG9ugSxj4DwAw & A ; ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA # v=onepage & A ; q=tort in us & A ; f=false.New York: Oxford University Press.