Introduction
From the narrative given, Paula seems to be suffering from a series of unfortunate events. This analysis looks at whether Paula has a case against Capstone Corporation for terminating her after she posted disparaging comments on social media about her boss and the company. Paula made the comments after she was reprimanded for violating the company’s policy whereby she used the company’s property for personal use. Paula may sue for summary dismissal, although she did wrong by posting damaging remarks about her employer on Facebook. In regards to the agreement that Paula had with Freddy, she may sue for breach of contract on the part of Freddy. These details are substantiated further in the following paragraphs.
Paula and Capstone Corporation
The legal question at hand is whether Paula can institute legal claims against capstone Corporation. The question as to whether the right to privacy was interfered with depends on what the right to privacy states. On 1st January, 213, the act on the right to privacy in the workplace was ratified to make it illegal for any employer to oblige an employee to provide passwords and other access permissions for employees’ profile for social networking sites. Nonetheless, the right to privacy in the workplace gives the employer the right to monitor what an employee is doing with the internet as long as an employee is using the company equipment such as computers, printers and the entire network system. Whatever an employee does with the company’s computer system is regarded as the company’s property, including personal emails. Companies have invested in modern technologies that are able to track and detect misuse of resources or visit to prohibited sites, and these emails are increasingly used in courts tp prove wrong doing on the part of the employee.
In view of the above, Paula is not covered by the right to privacy because she is using the company’s property for personal use. Sending an email to her mother using capstone corporation computer system is not protected, and the email remains the property of the employer and can be used as evidence of her misconduct in the court of law. By reprimanding Paula, Mikey Manager who is Paula’s supervisor was right and within the mandate the company has given him to oversee workers. Therefore, Paula does not have a right to privacy when using Capstone Corporation’s email system.
In relation to whether Paula can be legally fired from her job for making disparaging remarks about her supervisor and the company in social media, the precedent case that was set in 2015 in the case of PIER SIXTY, LLC and Hernan Perez and Evelyn applies. In the case, a waiter at pier sixty posted negative comments about his supervisor on Facebook. Workers wanted to unionize to demand for better terms of work, including the ability to talk with others in the course of their work. In the case, Hernan Perez, a waiter at pier sixty was found talking to his colleagues, which led the supervisor to reprimand him. Infuriated by his supervisor’s conducted, Perez took to Facebook and posted the following comment “Bob is such a NASTY M----- F----- don’t know how to talk to people!!!!!! F--- his mother and his entire f------ family!!!! What a LOSER!!!! Vote YES for the UNION!” Perez was sacked for the comments. The resolution by the National Labor Relations Board established that Perez comments were protected by law (Smith, 2015). As such, Paula’s comments on social media are protected, implying that capstone corporation unlawfully fired Paula, and she has legal claims. What capstone ought to have done was to punish Paula for the comments in accordance to the company’s policies on social media.
The Case of Paula and Freddy
In exploring whether Paula and Freddy have a contract for the sale of the old mustang, the elements of a contract formation will be looked in detail. For a contract to be formed, five main elements must be there. The first element is offer whereby one person offers another something of value. The invitation by Freddy to Paula to sell his old mustang amounts to a valid offer. The second element in contract formation is acceptance. Acceptance can be implied or express whereby an offeree may act in a certain way that shows acceptance. The agreement by Paula to purchase the old mustang amounts to acceptance of the offer.
The third element that must be there is that of consideration whereby something of value has to be given. Consideration is sometimes referred to as the mutuality of obligations and the meeting of minds whereby both parties acknowledge the existence of a contract and its obligations. The consideration in the case of Paula and Freddy is $1,000 whereby Paula will part with this amount of money while Freddy will give his old mustang. The fourth element in contract formation is capacity whereby parties entering to a contract must have contracting capacity. The assumption here is that Paula and Freddy both had contractual capacities such as being aged 18 years and above, they were of sound mind, and they not drunk at the time of making a contract.
The final element in the formation of a contract is legality. The purpose of legality is to ensure that people do not enter into contract or the wrong reasons as illegal contracts are not unenforceable. Although the agreement between Freddy and Paula fulfills the first four elements of a contract, it is wanting on the aspect of legality. The agreement between Freddy and Paula is an oral contract which is enforceable, but the statute of frauds necessitates that some contracts be made in writing. Contracts or the sale of goods values at $500 or more must be in writing, contracts made in consideration of marriage, promises to guarantee to pay the debt of another person, and contracts for the sale or lease or mortgage (Williams, 2013). Since the sale under consideration is more than $500, Paula ought to have gone a step further to ask Freddy to put agreement in writing, which makes it possible to enforce the contract and give legality to the agreement. Otherwise, the contract is wanting in terms of legality.
Conclusion
An analysis of Paula legal position reveals that Paula was not protected by the right to privacy because she was using capstone corporation e-mail system. Paula acted wrongfully by using the employer’s resource or her own use by sending a personal email to her mother. Regarding the posting of disparaging remarks on Facebook, Paula is protected by law as the National Labor Relations Board held in the case of PIER SIXTY, LLC and Hernan Perez and Evelyn that Facebook comments that employees make are protected. Regarding whether there is a contract between Freddy and Paula for the old mustang, there oral contracts meets the four elements of contract formation, that is, offer, acceptance, consideration, and capacity. Nonetheless, the contract is wanting in terms of legality as the statute of fraud necessitates that contracts for the sale of goods above $500 be made in writing.
From the narrative given, Paula seems to be suffering from a series of unfortunate events. This analysis looks at whether Paula has a case against Capstone Corporation for terminating her after she posted disparaging comments on social media about her boss and the company. Paula made the comments after she was reprimanded for violating the company’s policy whereby she used the company’s property for personal use. Paula may sue for summary dismissal, although she did wrong by posting damaging remarks about her employer on Facebook. In regards to the agreement that Paula had with Freddy, she may sue for breach of contract on the part of Freddy. These details are substantiated further in the following paragraphs.
Paula and Capstone Corporation
The legal question at hand is whether Paula can institute legal claims against capstone Corporation. The question as to whether the right to privacy was interfered with depends on what the right to privacy states. On 1st January, 213, the act on the right to privacy in the workplace was ratified to make it illegal for any employer to oblige an employee to provide passwords and other access permissions for employees’ profile for social networking sites. Nonetheless, the right to privacy in the workplace gives the employer the right to monitor what an employee is doing with the internet as long as an employee is using the company equipment such as computers, printers and the entire network system. Whatever an employee does with the company’s computer system is regarded as the company’s property, including personal emails. Companies have invested in modern technologies that are able to track and detect misuse of resources or visit to prohibited sites, and these emails are increasingly used in courts tp prove wrong doing on the part of the employee.
In view of the above, Paula is not covered by the right to privacy because she is using the company’s property for personal use. Sending an email to her mother using capstone corporation computer system is not protected, and the email remains the property of the employer and can be used as evidence of her misconduct in the court of law. By reprimanding Paula, Mikey Manager who is Paula’s supervisor was right and within the mandate the company has given him to oversee workers. Therefore, Paula does not have a right to privacy when using Capstone Corporation’s email system.
In relation to whether Paula can be legally fired from her job for making disparaging remarks about her supervisor and the company in social media, the precedent case that was set in 2015 in the case of PIER SIXTY, LLC and Hernan Perez and Evelyn applies. In the case, a waiter at pier sixty posted negative comments about his supervisor on Facebook. Workers wanted to unionize to demand for better terms of work, including the ability to talk with others in the course of their work. In the case, Hernan Perez, a waiter at pier sixty was found talking to his colleagues, which led the supervisor to reprimand him. Infuriated by his supervisor’s conducted, Perez took to Facebook and posted the following comment “Bob is such a NASTY M----- F----- don’t know how to talk to people!!!!!! F--- his mother and his entire f------ family!!!! What a LOSER!!!! Vote YES for the UNION!” Perez was sacked for the comments. The resolution by the National Labor Relations Board established that Perez comments were protected by law (Smith, 2015). As such, Paula’s comments on social media are protected, implying that capstone corporation unlawfully fired Paula, and she has legal claims. What capstone ought to have done was to punish Paula for the comments in accordance to the company’s policies on social media.
The Case of Paula and Freddy
In exploring whether Paula and Freddy have a contract for the sale of the old mustang, the elements of a contract formation will be looked in detail. For a contract to be formed, five main elements must be there. The first element is offer whereby one person offers another something of value. The invitation by Freddy to Paula to sell his old mustang amounts to a valid offer. The second element in contract formation is acceptance. Acceptance can be implied or express whereby an offeree may act in a certain way that shows acceptance. The agreement by Paula to purchase the old mustang amounts to acceptance of the offer.
The third element that must be there is that of consideration whereby something of value has to be given. Consideration is sometimes referred to as the mutuality of obligations and the meeting of minds whereby both parties acknowledge the existence of a contract and its obligations. The consideration in the case of Paula and Freddy is $1,000 whereby Paula will part with this amount of money while Freddy will give his old mustang. The fourth element in contract formation is capacity whereby parties entering to a contract must have contracting capacity. The assumption here is that Paula and Freddy both had contractual capacities such as being aged 18 years and above, they were of sound mind, and they not drunk at the time of making a contract.
The final element in the formation of a contract is legality. The purpose of legality is to ensure that people do not enter into contract or the wrong reasons as illegal contracts are not unenforceable. Although the agreement between Freddy and Paula fulfills the first four elements of a contract, it is wanting on the aspect of legality. The agreement between Freddy and Paula is an oral contract which is enforceable, but the statute of frauds necessitates that some contracts be made in writing. Contracts or the sale of goods values at $500 or more must be in writing, contracts made in consideration of marriage, promises to guarantee to pay the debt of another person, and contracts for the sale or lease or mortgage (Williams, 2013). Since the sale under consideration is more than $500, Paula ought to have gone a step further to ask Freddy to put agreement in writing, which makes it possible to enforce the contract and give legality to the agreement. Otherwise, the contract is wanting in terms of legality.
Conclusion
An analysis of Paula legal position reveals that Paula was not protected by the right to privacy because she was using capstone corporation e-mail system. Paula acted wrongfully by using the employer’s resource or her own use by sending a personal email to her mother. Regarding the posting of disparaging remarks on Facebook, Paula is protected by law as the National Labor Relations Board held in the case of PIER SIXTY, LLC and Hernan Perez and Evelyn that Facebook comments that employees make are protected. Regarding whether there is a contract between Freddy and Paula for the old mustang, there oral contracts meets the four elements of contract formation, that is, offer, acceptance, consideration, and capacity. Nonetheless, the contract is wanting in terms of legality as the statute of fraud necessitates that contracts for the sale of goods above $500 be made in writing.
