Business LawWhen Girdy wrote Bob a check for $2350.00, it bounced. Under the law, Bob could have resubmitted the check and charged Girdy a fee, but instead he chose to take to possession back of the computer.
The cat that caused Bob to fall and injure him and the computer belonged to Matilda. Because was not in her possession, nor was it leashed, Bob could have sued Matilda for negligence. Negligence is defined as: “the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances.” In the case of Maltida, unless she can show just cause and prove the death of her cat caused her to show personal injuries in the amount of $4075, she has no case to sue Bob for the money considering she only paid $25 for the cat.
When Matilda posted flyers around the town about Bob, she committed the tort of slander and libel (because it was in writing). “The law has imposed a general duty on all persons to refrain from making false, defamatory statements about others.” Since Bob owns a store in the town, he may be considered a “public figure”, and in such case she also committed the crime of ‘actual malice’. The law stated that: ” a statement must be made with either knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth.” In Matilda’s statement: “ a child molesting cat killer who sells defective computers”, she committed the crime of defamation and bears no defense against it, especially since she later admits to it in writing.
The next thing Bob did was commit murder. Bob committed an intentional tort. “Intent only means that the actor intended the consequences of his or her act, or knew with substantial certainty that certain consequences would result from the act.”
When Bob was in prison, the “gang” that beat him up committed assault and battery. Since an intentional, unexcused act that created in Bob “a reasonable apprehension of fear or immediate harmful or offensive contact”, and assault occurred. The completion of the act is what is known as ‘battery”.