BUGusa Essay

637 Words Feb 19th, 2014 3 Pages
University of Phoenix Material

BUGusa, Inc., Worksheet

Use the scenarios in the BUGusa, Inc., link located on the student website to answer the following questions.

Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc., Advertisement
Has WIRETIME, Inc., committed any torts? If so, explain.
Reading the article I’ve found that WIRETIME, Inc., Advertisement is wrong doing to the BUGusa, Inc because of the statement in their advertisement that states “that BUGusa, Inc.’s electronic devices were low quality and did not work reliably for than one month”. Has WIRETIME, Inc., has committed a tort, which they could have just said how good of a quality they have then others that’s out right now.

Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Janet)
Has WIRETIME, Inc. committed any
…show more content…
However, BUGusa can defend themselves with assumption of risk because the employees knew that there has been previous crimes in the area. The employees could have taken proper actions to lower the risk of being a victim of crime. The vendor should not have waited for the supervisor especially if there was not good lighting.

Scenario: BUGusa, Inc. (Randy and Brian)
What defenses may be available to BUGusa, Inc.? Explain your answer.
Both parties failed to be negligent in this scenario. Although Brian was speeding, Randy failed to yield. The main defense should be whether this accident could have been prevented if Randy hadn’t failed to yield. Both were in the wrong doing as both broke the law. If Brian wasn’t speeding, could he have stopped ahead of time before striking Randy? Both parties were an example of comparative negligence. They each contributed to the accident; therefore, this tort will dictate how the responsibility for this accident will be shared between both of the parties whom were involved and suffered bodily injury or property damage.

Scenario: BUGusa, Inc. (Sally)
Sally may have a successful case against BUGusa, Inc., for what torts? Explain your answer.

BUGusa Inc. knew about the defect but made a conscious decision not to “redesign” the product because it would cost too much money. Sally may have a successful case claiming intentional tort, negligence, design and manufacturing defect, causation and damages and strict liability.
Open Document