Kathy’s participation would be considered in terms of the fact that other messages. Other than the email # 6 can be deemed as Kathy’s message and not Bill’s. But for this Bill would have to be coward enough to turn his back on Kathy and say that she accessed his Email account without permission. So in this case Bill is responsible for correspondence #6 in evidence.
By law, now, they held Walt. But the case description does not specify any warrants being shown to Waltz. One thing being clear. Walt was hacking Jim’s system for his personal and Bill’s personal advantage and their firm’s advantage.
Answer) Walt can plead for the motion of cause, only in the following cases: if Walt is able to prove that has committed a minor crime or a crime that has not caused sever damage or loss to the concerned party.
Legally, if he has caused damage and loss to the concerned party, he cannot be granted the Motion of Cause. Because as the motion of cause suggests that the evidence found during the search, it would not be allowed to be presented as evidence in court.
3) The CPIF stands for Cost plus incentive fee contract. Megacorp and Mesoco. in other words John and Jim and both their firms had a contract , as this contract was a CPIF contract , by law , Mesoco will have to pay the Amount as ruled by the court because of the implication that CPIF had on their contract . Legally it was not John or his firms’ responsibility to know how Jim will complete the project.
It was Jims Responsibility. As the CPIF indicates the cost of the project plus some bonus if all is successful.
4) Barbara was at fault initially, she did decide in hastiness, or what one might presume is that, now that she knew she had settled for a lesser amount, she thought this was a good way out. Other than that if we observe the other facts. Which are that she was not qualified enough to handle the project wholly. So she was honest enough to let Bill and Kathy know that she would not continue, if she would she would need an extension on the deadline as well as the assistance of two other people who would be able to do the job for her. For some extra cost. That extra cost was also specified in the mail correspondence.
Furthermore, other than this if that wouldn’t or couldn’t be the case she herself volunteered to back out, and just be paid for the work she had done up till then.
The contract she made with Microdev was true and very much there. They can hold her in court against making them suffer when they were half way through the project. Just because she was not careful enough to read all the specifications clearly does not let her buy herself out of the situation.
Legally, also Bill and his firm can take her to court and possibly win, if they can prove their point.
5) Nanotechnocrats owe money to Microdev. It is quite sensible.
But legally,

You may also like

Management of service quality issue

The valet parking service is generally provided by establishments such

Whether Savannah Harbour Expansion Project Is Worth the Shot

The greatest concern before implementing a project of such an

Red Zuma Project

In-depth analysis of the marketA comprehensive product designSelecting the appropriate