Reference no: EM131627339

CASE ACTIVITY: The State, the prosecutor, cannot appeal an acquittal (barred by Double Jeopardy). However, prosecutors can generally appeal a sentence lighter than that imposed by Sentencing Guidelines. The sentencing judge must give his/her reasons in writing at the time of the sentencing. The appeals court will consider the sufficiency of these reasons.

Scenario; Cyber Crime: Jiri Klimecek was a member of a group that overrode copyright protection in movies, video games, and software, and made them available for download online. Klimecek bought and installed hardware and software to set up a computer server and paid half of the monthly service charges to connect the server to the internet. He knew that users around the world could access the server to upload and download copyrighted works. He obtained access to Czech movies and music to them available. Klimecek was indicated in a federal district court for copyright infringement. He claimed that he did not understand the full scope of the operation. Did Kilmecek commit a crime? If so, was he a "minor participant" entitled to a reduced sentence? Explain.

CASE ACTIVITY: The question of leniency is typically a subjective judgment, not a legal one, so there is no right or wrong answer.The Appeals Court will consider whether the judge's reasons for the lighter sentence are justified.

Scenario: A Question Of Ethics: Identity Theft. Twenty-year-old Davis Omole had good grades in high school, where he played on the football and chess teams, and went on to college. Omole worked at a cell phone store where he store customerpersonal information. He used the stolen identities to create a hundred different accounts on eBay, and held more than three hundred auctions listings for sale items that he did not own (including cell phones, plasma televisions, and stereos). From these auctions, he collected $90,000. To avoid getting caught, he continuously closed and opened the eBay accounts, activated and deactivated cell phone and e-email accounts, and changed mailing addresses and post office boxes. Omole, who had previously been convicted in a federal district court of identity theft and wire fraud.

(a) Omola displayed contempt for the court and ridiculed his victims, calling them stupid for having been cheated. What does this behavior suggest about Omole's ethics?

(b) Under federal sentencing guidelines, Omole could have been imprisoned for more than eight years. He received only three years, however, two of which compromised the mandatory sentence for identity theft. Was this sentence too lenient? Explain.

CASE ACTVITY: Please do not worry about the discussion of "pre-emption" in this case. This is an issue that generally is unrelated to the issue of implied contracts. As you read about the facts, please keep in mind the public policy behind enforcing "implied contracts." Bill

Scenario: Spotlight on Taco Bell-Implied Contract. Thomas Rinks and Joseph Shields developed psychChihuahua, a caricature of a Chihuahua dog with a "do-not-back-down" attitude. They promoted and marketed the character through their company, Wrench, L.L.C. Ed Alfaro and Rudy Pollak, representatives of Taco Bell Corp., learned of Psycho Chihuahua and met with Rinks and Shields to talk about using the character as a Taco Bell "icon". Wrench sent art work, merchandise, and marketing ideas to Alfaro, who promoted the character within Taco Bell. Alfaro asked Wrench to propose terms for Taco Bell's use Psycho Chihuahua. Taco Bell did not accept Wrench's terms, but Alfaro continued to promote the character within the company. Meanwhile, Taco Bell hired a new advertising agency, which proposed campaign involving a Chihuahua. When Alfaro learned of this proposal, he sent the Psycho Chihuahua materials to the agency. Taco Bell made a Chihuahua the focus of its marketing but paid nothing to Wrench. Wrench filed a suit against Taco Bell in a federal court claiming that it had an implied contract with Taco Bell and that Taco Bell breached that contract. Do these facts satisfy the requirements for an implied contract? Why or Why not?