The Legal Team Of Greene 's Jewelry Essay

On June 30, 2015, AP closed an internal theft case at the Hudson’s Bay Anjou store for the value of $150. AP reviewed the CCTV and observed the maintenance associate concealing merchandise in the garbage. Live surveillance was conducted and the associate was observed to remove food from the packing and concealed it. The associate was interviewed and admitted to previous thefts of jewelry items and also some testers and food write offs.

In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendants made a series of purchases on the following dates. On November 23rd, 2013, defendant Gonzalez attempted to buy cartons of cigarettes that totaled 128 dollars via counterfeit access devices. On March 6, 2016, Gonzalez and Pierre-Charles drove to a convenience store and bought items totaling 527.26 dollars via the counterfeit access device. Following, on March 20th the defendants Durandis and Gonzalez traveled to another convenience store in Berks County, Pennsylvania making a purchase that totaled roughly 1,915.73 dollars via the use of the access devices (United States of America v. Robert Durandis, et al, 2014). A week later, on March 27th it was discovered that within a vehicle driven by defendants Durandis and Charles it contained a fraudulent New York driver’s licenses, an expired Pennsylvania id card, 80 cartons of Newport cigarettes, and over 250 counterfeit access devices (United States of America v. Robert Durandis, et al,

We the legal team of Greene’s Jewelry has the opportunity to evaluate all the necessary details of the case and overlooked what the strengths and weaknesses of our argument would be presented in the Court. To assist our argument we have decided to utilize the regulations, substantive laws and case laws. The case precedents will provide multiple directions for the arguments to be assessed in the Court. Greene’s Jewelry is more likely to receive a favorable judgment by applying these laws, in the claim against Ms. Lawson. After numerous evaluations and examinations, we the legal team has assessed the elements of the case and concluded that the primary reason of the lawsuit against Ms. Lawson is due to her breach of the non-disclosure agreement. The manner in which Ms. Lawson violated her contract depicts her true intention in her activities. Ms. Lawson’s behavior led to an interruption in Greene’s Jewelry daily business operation process. Howell acquired confidential information from Ms. Lawson on Greene’s secret trade process of Ever-Gold makes it a criminal offense. The State of New Hampshire has established laws to “protect private and public bodies from misappropriation of secret trades; these are laws that copy the Federal Uniform

Jennifer Lawson, who was rightfully terminated during Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale’s downsizing effort for consistent tardiness throughout her three years of employment with Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale, breached the confidentiality agreement to not share any information regarding the process used to create “Ever-Gold,” by sharing key process elements in producing Ever-Gold to a competing business named Howell Jewelry World. Ever-Gold is the primary asset of Greene’s and is sold exclusively through Greene’s.

7. Smith was approached by a man who introduced himself as Brown of Brown & Co. Brown was not known to Smith, but Smith asked Dun & Bradstreet for a credit report and obtained a very favorable report on Brown. He thereupon sold Brown some expensive gems and billed Brown & Co. ‘‘Brown’’ turned out to be a clever jewel thief, who later sold the gems to Brown & Co. for valuable consideration. Brown & Co. was unaware of ‘‘Brown’s’’ transaction with Smith. Can Smith successfully sue Brown & Co. for either the return of the gems or the price as billed to Brown & Co.?

Facts: The plaintiff Taser International, Inc is a company that produced electronic devices such as stun guns, and even accessories that are needed with control devices. In addition, the company also manufactured TASER CAM which is an audio and video recording device that is mostly sold for military, security and public purposes. The defendant Steve Ward was a vice president of marketing in the Taser International Inc., who worked full time from January 1, 2004 to July 24, 2007 until the day he resigned. However, even though he was a full time employee, he was not part of any employment contract. The defendant Ward was aware of many confidential information and even trade secrets since he was the vice president of the company which is a very important aspect of the company. In 2006 Ward thought of getting legal advice on whether he could create an eyeglass-mounted camera by searching to see if this type of idea was patented already or not. The patent counsel found an eyeglass-mounted camera already to be patented and then the defendant Ward, thought about modifying his camera to a clip-on camera. On August 23, 2007 Ward formed his company known as Vievu LLC in order to get his product of a clip-on camera on to the market. But before his resignation he investigated more about developing a business plan, and about camera devices. As a result, Taser Company sued Ward for violating

In paper, Greene’s Jewelry has a strong case against Jennifer Lawson because Jennifer breached the confidentiality agreements that she signed with Greene’s Jewelry. In the agreement, it specifically indicated that Jennifer could never disclose any information regarding “Ever-Gold” creating process, which is patented and owned by Greene’s Jewelry. Jennifer not only stole a draft letter that contains the details of creating Ever-Gold but also took it to Greene’s competitor Howell Jewelry World in order to obtain a job offer from the company. The employment contract that Jennifer signed with Howell is a certain evidence of her unjust enrichment. Regarding Jennifer Lawson’s claim that she encountered wrongful termination at Greene’s, it is simply a misinterpretation of Greene’s legitimate reduction in force. The company no longer had a need for any junior executive secretaries. The downsizing was unfortunately but legal.

The Defendant worked in the research and development department at Greene’s Jewelry as a junior executive secretary for 3 years. The Defendant recently found out she was pregnant and was released from the company by Lisa Peele, head of Human Resources per Greene’s Jewelry was downsizing and The Defendants position was no longer needed. Upon leaving Greene’s Jewelry the Defendant took documents disclosing patent information that outlined the secret process of manufacturing Ever-Gold. Ever-Gold is a synthetic gold-colored material that’s impervious to scratches, discoloration, oxidization, and is marked as “everlasting gold” (2016), which is used on Greene’s Jewelry necklaces, rings, earrings, and bracelets. This is Greene’s Jewelry most asset. Upon accepting employment with Greene’s Jewelry, The Defendant signed a nondisclosure agreement that legally binds those who agree to keep specified information a secret or secured. The Defendant never signed a covenant agreement with Greene’s Jewelry. The Defendant becomes employed with one of Greene’s Jewelry competitors Howell Jewelry World. Howell Jewelry World knows The

Issue: Should the Court rule as time-barred the Plaintiff’s claims which he makes under the Massachusetts ‘Blue Sky’ securities fraud statute and as lacking as a matter of law the Plaintiff’s claim on the Defendants’ unfair trade practices?

I believe that our company stands to lose a lot as a result of a successful suit against us by Ms. Pollard. We have reason to believe that if these actions are taken to court, we will find it difficult to deny the allegations and defend ourselves in

Your honors and may it please the court, I alongside co-counsel,represent small businesswoman Paula Keene. I will explain why it is important to uphold West Virginia Statute 31d-6-622 to maintain the corporate veil and to show that Ms. Keene is not personally responsible for corporate debts accrued by Main Event. My co-counsel will explain why punitive damages should not be awarded against Ms. Keene. Your honor, I respectfully request 2 minutes for rebuttal.

On July 07, 2016, AP closed an internal merchandise case theft at the Bay Sherbrooke store for a value of $429.99. On Monday July 4, 2016, AP saw the associate taking a men’s shirt and bringing it to the jewelry counter and concealed the merchandise in a jewelry cabinet. Next day AP checked for the merchandise but it was no longer present. On Wednesday AP did a live surveillance and saw the associate bringing ladies wear merchandise to her counter, removed the hard tags, and put the merchandise into another retailer (Simmons) bag. During her lunch break she took the Simmons bags and left the store with without paying for the merchandise in the bag. AP did the parcel check and discovered the merchandise and the associate admitted immediately

Both parties consulted their attorneys whose guidance instructed them that they did not have to disclose the information. The motivating factor in both decisions was to protect the livelihood of their companies. The facts of the information that had been revealed to each company had not been proven.

Maupassant effectively portrays a marriage that is misunderstood through manipulation, distrust, and deception. He does this by describing each individual, the couple in relation to one another, as well as their lifestyle.

The definition of a lawsuit is a civil action brought in court in which a plaintiff demands another person, known as the defendant, pay this person equitable resolve (dictionary.com). In other words they want payment for being wronged in the past. If the case is found to be legitimate and proven justifiable, the defendant pays the plaintiff the awarded compensation. This brings us to the story, The Lawsuit, by Naguib Mahfouz. This tale is about a son being sued by his father’s widow demanding maintenance be paid to her some twenty years after the father’s death. Several of the individuals in this story serve very little purpose.