Case One: Green Machine, Inc. Green Machine, Inc., a company devoted to producin

Question

Case One: Green Machine, Inc.

Green Machine, Inc., a company devoted to producing eco-friendly household products, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Colossal Corporation. Green Machine's most famous and best-selling product is the Eco-Widget—a handheld, solar-powered device that recharges a variety of electronics on the go, including cell phones, laptops, and tablets. Colossal Corporation has uncovered an incident of theft at Green Machine: Approximately one month ago, over 400 Eco-Widgets were stolen from Green Machine's Adelphi, Maryland warehouse.

Shortly after the theft was discovered, Colossal Corporation's internal investigator, Ivan, found an online advertisement for the sale of exactly 400 Eco-Widgets. Ivan called the contact on the website and set up a meeting with the seller, Greg Smith. When Ivan, under the guise of being an interested purchaser of the widgets, inquired about Greg's distributor, Greg did not hesitate to reveal that he purchased the widgets from Rachel Jones, his long-time business associate. Ivan inspected the 400 Eco-Widgets, and confirmed they were indeed the same products that were stolen from the warehouse. He then requested a price quote from Greg and asked Greg to hold the products for him for seven days. Greg agreed.

Ivan arranged a meeting with Rachel the very next day, during which he pretended that he wanted to buy electronics from her. He asked Rachel if she had any Eco-Widget distributors she could recommend. Rachel said that she works directly with a Green Machine sales agent named Sam Simpson, and that she recently purchased 400 Eco-Widgets from him at a discounted price. Rachel also said that Sam is quite interested in expanding his business with her, and would provide Ivan with a great deal.

After his meeting with Rachel, Ivan checked the personnel records at Green Machine and identified Sam Simpson as a low-level warehouse employee who has been with the company for over 10 years. Sam's personnel record is spotless, with no prior personnel issues and no complaints. Sam is in charge of night security at the warehouse, and has no history in sales. As a night security guard, Sam is responsible for protecting the warehouse from theft, and is not permitted to sell products. After further investigation, Ivan found company e-mails between Rachel and Sam in which Sam posed as a sales agent. Reading the e-mails, it became obvious that neither Rachel nor Greg knew that the 400 Eco-Widgets were stolen. Ivan then collected video from all of Sam's shifts and was able to locate a film of Sam packing the Eco-Widgets into his personal car and driving them out of the warehouse parking lot.

Your task is to research the legal issues surrounding the stolen property. It is up to you to decipher which laws have been broken, and what the potential remedies are. The vice president wants you to prepare a narrated PowerPoint to present this information to the senior leadership team. Because of the sensitive nature of this case, the vice president has asked you to operate with total confidentiality and without involving the legal department.

Question 1:

Can Colossal Corporation terminate Sam without any notice or a hearing? Why or why not? This question relates to employment-at-will.

Question 2:

Did Sam, Rachel, or Greg commit any crimes and, if so, which crimes did each person commit? Fully explain your answer for each person as you explore the subject of business criminal law.

Question 3:

Did Sam, Rachel, or Greg commit any torts and, if so, which torts did each person commit? Read about the law of torts in order to make your determinations.

Explanation / Answer

The legal issues surrounding the stolen property could be as follows:

Here the pledger is the thief i.e. Sam, pledgee is the person who got the products in faith i.e. Rachel, the victim is the Colossal corporation. Although Rachel, when acquired stolen property, was ignorant of the theft. For Rachel, it is a false verification as well as misrepresentation where Sam introduced himself as the Sales agent. The theft property can be seized without a warrant according to older federal authority. The laws included are Penal Code, Financial Code, Business and Profession Code, Commercial Code, Rutgers Law, Mlssissippi Law, Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and related offenses), Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 etc.

1. This is a case of Larcency where without the permission of the owner, the goods were stolen. If the theft property is proved in the nameThis theft punishment differs with the amount and time period for prison. Colossal Corporation can terminate Sam as this is a serious misconduct else the employer needs to give notice of termination with the reason. The employee will be suspended or dismissed according to employment rights. Here with the concept of "at-will employment" the employee can be dismissed as the termination is on concrete evidence.

2. Possession of theft products i.e by Rachel is a crime with a felony or misdemeanor. It comes under Larcency Act and Criminal Code. It is a federal crime under title 18 of United States Code. Sam is the main culprit and the maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment. Greg is also a culprit as he is also a part of the theft. Rachel and Greg did not verify the fake position of Sam.

3. Yes, Sam, Greg, and Rachel committed torts according to Tort Law i.e they need to compensate for the injuries and damages of Colossal Corporation. It is an intentional misconduct for a wrongful conduct. It was an intent to harm the company for personal benefits. Rachel and Greg have Vicarious liability as it is indirect responsibility for theft acts of Sam. For Sam, it is an intentional tort.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.