FINAL PROJECT MILESTONE TWO 2
Running Head: FINAL PROJECT MILESTONE TWO 1
Final Project Milestone Two
Student Name: Abby Olson
Institutional Affiliation: Southern New Hampshire University
Date: November 27th 2021
Subject: Legal Matters against Jane
There are a lot of defenses that you can raise concerning the checks written by Jane to Don. The defenses include forgery; from the case study, it is pretty clear that Jane intentionally forged signatures intending to defraud. In court, under the penal code 70, the crime of forgery is that which one intentionally defrauds by either forging someone’s signature or name on a check made to another party without their consent (Hemrai, 2002). Also, Jane, under the accountant’s profession, can be charged with fraud if she misinterpreted a material fact, acted with the intention of deceit, caused misinterpretation to a client which the client relied on, and lastly, if the client suffers in any way from relying on fraudulent information. There are two types of fraud that you can charge Jane with; actual fraud and constructive fraud. It is clear from this case that it is an actual fraud since Jane did the actions intentionally. Before the judge, it would be appropriate for the complainant to testify that they did not sign the document and request a handwritten exam identifying the person who signed (Rashid, 2018). In any case, the signature is not approved to be of the owner, and any liability will not be imposed on the wrongly accused party. However, there is another angle the court can handle this matter; Don can be charged with negligence since he ought to have checked the signatures in the check and submitted the check-in question to the particular bank immediately for a check-up. It is clear from the case study that Loan Sharks were involved in the illegal business since, despite the check being forged, they cashed it successfully. The act of forgery or fraud is a felony in all countries and states; the punishment of such a felony would belong to a jail term and or with heavy fines. Jane’s amount of money embezzled to Don can be recovered from Loan Sharks since they were knowingly and negligently cashing out the checks without proper verification of the signatures. I have a firm conviction that the defense of fraud or forgery, in this case, would be the most successful than any other possible defenses that you can make concerning the check written by Jane to Don.
You have two main legal defenses against Jane concerning the check written to the church: tax fraud and forgery. As evidenced by this case, Jane is making checks by falsifying the genuine owner’s name and signature on the check. According to the church values and beliefs, one cannot donate with someone else’s money without consent. The church can dishonour the check, and the owner of the check refunded their money. Also, it can be illegal to write such a check off in the church’s tax returns. However, you might be disadvantaged in case the church had already completed the cashing out of the check.
The civil claims on Jane include embezzlement, impersonation, or forgery, and misrepresentation of their personality. The suit can go both ways; it can be either successful or unsuccessful. In misrepresentation of personality, Jane claimed your personality, which according to personal rights, is illegal. Firstly, you can explain that the check is not valid since Jane forged the signatures. You can have another claim based on forgery; they have to prove that the signature on the check Jane presented to Don was not their own but an act of impersonation by Jane. As per embezzlement of funds, you can sue Jane since she, as the bookkeeper, had to keep accurate records for the company. She failed in her responsibility according to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1993 (Sale, 2018). The act clearly states that all accountants are liable for any omissions and misstatements made in the company book of accounts. Also, according to the same act, all accountants are expected to perform their duties with diligence. Due to that, Jane is responsible and answerable for the stolen money.
In this case, Fred’s Miracle Cough Syrup is a limited liability company; therefore, chapters 7 and 13 bankruptcy are applicable. From the chapters, Fred and the business are one; there is no separation between them. From the chapters, it is clear that in case of a debt, Fred’s creditors are allowed to sue him individually and take his assets, for that matter. The only property that can be exempted is the one acknowledged by the State law, and this takes about four months for the bankruptcy charges to be fully processed. According to chapters 7 and 13 bankruptcy actions on a sole proprietorship, the personal assets are not treated as a separate legal entity since they are also listed together with the business assets in the bankruptcy. Therefore, the business assets of Fred’s business might be subject to forced sales if he fails to pay his debts. It is also clear that the individual family members may be affected by the bankruptcy since the family assets are listed along with the business assets and are subject to forced sales unless the property is exempted by State law. Chapter 7 bankruptcy is the most appropriate since it allows the owners, for instance, Fred, in this case, to terminate their non-exempt assets.
Intellectual property is the mind creations, for instance, art, and literary works, designs, and symbols used by a person or a business in commerce (Campi & Duenas, 2019). Intellectual property is owned by a person or a business and protected by law in trademarks, patents, and copyrights. Intellectual property enables people to benefit from their creations hence fostering a creative and innovative environment. In the case of Fred’s Miracle Cough Syrup, Fred can use the Intellectual Property Rights to sue Bob for his actions. Copyrights protect the original work of the formula, which Bob infringed. According to patent rights, Fred’s inventions and designs of the syrup are protected so no one can produce a similar copy of the product. For the patent protection to be granted to Fred, the syrup must be patentable. The syrup must be a unique creation by Fred, meaning no one could have made the syrup. Lastly, the syrup must not be obvious to make meaning; not just anybody should make the syrup without specific skills. However, there was no evidence that Bob obtained information from Fred and changed the formula of the syrup. Also, in the court of law, the patent rights might not protect you since the cough syrup was not entirely a new idea, nor was the invention unique; anybody could come up with the syrup, is proven since Bob single-handedly reverse-engineered the syrup and came up with the recipe. According to the trademark policy, a trademark must be a distinctive mark, picture or design used in conjunction with a product and helps the customers identify the product and its producer (Stim, 2020). As an attorney, I believe that the trademark claim might be bound to fail since Bob posted the recipe online; hence we have to do additional research to establish whether he used your design or logo. Therefore, it would be difficult to make a successful claim against Bob unless you utilize everything in the Intellectual Property Rights, such as the misuse of confidential information or leaking the syrup’s business secret to the public. When you utilize such matters, you would successfully build a solid case against Bob and win.
Regards,
Lawyer’s Name
Signature
References
Campi, M., & Dueñas, M. (2019). Intellectual property rights, trade agreements, and international trade. Research Policy, 48(3), 531-545.
Hemraj, M. B. (2002). The crime of forgery. Journal of Financial Crime.
Rashid, M. M. (2018). The crime of forgery by leaving. Journal of College of Law for Legal and Political Sciences, 7(27/part 1).
Sale, H. A. (2018). Disclosure’s Purpose. Geo. LJ, 107, 1045.
Stim, R. (2020). Patent, copyright & trademark: an intellectual property desk reference. No.
United States Courts (2010). Bankruptcy Basics- Part 2: Types of Bankruptcy. Retrieved from https://www. Youtube.com/watch?v=DXv-na6y8nE
The post FINAL PROJECT MILESTONE TWO 2 Running Head: FINAL PROJECT MILESTONE TWO 1 appeared first on PapersSpot.
