Question 1
When dealing with business over the Internet the Calder Test should be used. While examining a case using the Calder Test the case must meet specific requirements. The court must prove that the defendant intentionally committed the act in question, that they directly aimed their business at the forum state, and that it was known by the defendant that it would likely cause harm to be suffered in the forum state. With the use of this test all of the evidence will be straight forwarding going along with the rules of the Calder Test this leaves little to no room for bias opinions, which leads to a clear verdict. Therefore, the Calder Test should be used because it is the most specific of the three.
The Zippo Test is based on a scale with three main points you are clearly conducting business, you are simply making information available to interested individuals/businesses. In the middle you have the user is a little more active where there is some communication exchanged but is very minimal and does not go to the extent of doing business or signing contracts. This test can be misleading in a way because of the broad scale they base it off. It may be hard to decipher the difference in the amount of activity that is taking place. With how vague it is it may be hard to remain unbiased and lead to a poor verdict. This is why the Zippo Test should not be used and the Calder Test is a better option.
The Totality-of-the-circumstance Test looks at everything that is surrounding the rights that were violated instead of just focusing on only two aspects. This test does not allow one leading factor to predict it all. Even though this test does take everything in to consideration it does not have specific guidelines that will specific if something was violated they do not make that line very clear-cut. Therefore the Calder Test is a more reliable test that touches all bases of the final verdict.
Question 2
I. The first legal issue is “Was there an act of defamation?”
R. The rule(s) of law that apply to this legal issue are:
1. Publication
a. False statements are made about a person(s) and communicated to a third party.
2. Statement of fact
a. A statement that is false and deceptive with regard to another person(s).
A. Analysis.
1. Did U.S Bank make a publication about a statement?
a. Yes, U.S Bank communicated to the mortgage company and the repair company that Andy had “insufficient funds” which was a false statement to a third party. It was communicated to the third parties through a written notice sent from U.S. Bank.
2. Did U.S. Bank make a statement of fact about Andy?
a. Yes, U.S. Bank made a statement of fact by sending out a notice that Andy had “insufficient funds” when the reason the money was not there was due to a bank error. The bank made the error of taking Rasoul’s insufficient funds check out of Andy’s personal account instead of his business account.
C. Conclusion: The U.S. Bank did commit an act of defamation against Andy. False statements about Andy were publicized to a third party.
Question 3
I. The first legal issue is “Was there an Unintentional Tort (Negligence) that occurred?”
R. The rule(s) of law that apply to this legal issue are:
1. Duty of care
a. Exercising a reasonable amount of care for others.
2. Breach
a. The failure to exercise a reasonable amount of care for others.
3. Causation
a. When the failure to exercise a reasonable amount of care occurs and results in an injury.
4. Injury
a. Legally recognizable injuries due to the failure
