Memo

Memo to Javier and Elena Brittany Lopez SNHU Business Law II Jerry LuleJian October 12, 2024 To: Javier and Elena From: Business Consultant Date: 9/16/2024 Subject: Legal Analysis for the Business Dear Javier and Elena, Since the growth of your business has been exponential, legal/ethical issues that arise against it have also increased. This memo gives a detailed discussion of the matters that touch on Tiffany's fraud and embezzlement, the company's risk of bankruptcy, and Tyrone's violation of your patent rights. Every section will analyze legal authorities, civil theories, bankruptcy considerations, and opportunities for action. * Legal Defenses on Checks in Relation to Don Tiffany's theft by check included making threats/bogus reports by signing them in the name of the company and recovering the money to Don, a loan shark. Under the law of the United States, forgery is a crime, and forged documents are generally deemed forgery. As per the provision of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 3-403, the signature made without the authority of the person whose name is used cannot be enforced against the signee. Thus, Javier and Elena could also counterclaim that the checks be termed nonexistent, thus freeing them from any unauthorized transactions on the forged checks. A similar case, Cooper v. Union Bank (1973), stated that a bank could not sue a customer for honor for offenses concerning cheques provided that the signature was forged and there was no negligence on the customer's side.[Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 3-403] [Cooper v. Union Bank, L.A. No. 30087. Supreme Court of California. March 20, 1973.] However, it is necessary to define whether it is possible to point out that Javier and Elena are negligent concerning the internal control of financial accounts. If the business did not have enough precautionary measures in place to prevent or identify unauthorized access to the corporate checks, then the bank is in a way can provide the jury evidence that the check deposited in good faith, and in this way, the defense of lack of reasonable care with the handling of the corporate checks might be affected. Therefore, despite short and clear rules against forged signatures in the UCC, Javier & Elena must prove they were careful to grant Tina access to business accounts. It might require improving ambition, recurrent audits, and higher financial control in the future. * Legal Defenses to Check That Was Written to the Church The check that Tiffany wrote to the church merges into another legal problem. Still, even where the check was forged, a defense could be more contentious because the church may have received the money in a bona fide manner as an innocent bystander. Courts do not wish to punish charitable organizations that receive embezzlement funds and do not know where they originated. Nonetheless, as unjust enrichment, Javier and Elena may be able to sue the church for repayment, claiming that they cannot allow the church to enjoy the fruit of ill-gotten wealth. One example is Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Village of Hempstead (1980). In this case, the Court demanded that the third-party beneficiary who received embezzlement money return it even though the recipient was not knowingly receiving looted monies. If the church has already spent the money on philanthropic activities, they may be unable to refund the money; however, they can seek an assortment to recover the amount.[Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Village of Hempstead, 397 N.E.2d 737 (N.Y. 1979)] However, all this will depend on the speed at which Javier and Elena will act. They must inform their bank and the authorities under the UCC and state laws. Better still, a delay in reporting could complicate their chances of reclaiming the money back from the church. Quickness and good record-keeping will be instrumental in prosecuting a proper defense. * Civil Claims Against Tiffany Based on Tiffany's fraudulent actio...