EF a travelling company was able to increase its efficiency in online booking by the use of a code generated by a former employee of its rival company, Exlporica. When Explorica were made aware of this they filed a legal suit against EF asking that the latter stop using the code and that the plaintiff gets all resources generated from the database. EF responded by filing a preliminary injucntion. EF was entitled to the injunction based on the fact that what it did was not illegal. However, since the code had been generated by a former employee of Explorica, EF had the ethical responsibility of inquiring from Explorica on whether it had any patent rights to the code generated by Gormley. But in terms of legal obligation, EF was right to do what it did because based on the Act Explorica is quoting, EF did not use any program owned by Explorica. The court in this case will be the one responsible to make the ruling on whether the amount of data generated by EF was beyond the set figure or it was an issue of innovation.
T&C had leased its property to R&J for use and among the obligations of the contract was that in case T&C was to cancel the lease, it would have to give R&J a 10-day notice. Upon failing to pay rent and other utility bills, R&J said it was not interested to renew the lease and T&C got a new tenant. R&J then made a claim that it had left behind some personal property at the hall and requested for its return. The new tenant requested that R&J submit a list of this property as other parties were claiming the same things. R&J however did not submit this list but instead went ahead to sue T&C for conversion. R&J did not have a claim of conversion since it had first of all failed to give a list of what it had left behind at the property. This shows that T&C through the new tenant had been willing to return the property, but this failed to happen due to R&J’s lack of co-operation. Also, since R&J had said that it had no interest in renewing the lease, then T&C had no obligation to give the ten-day notice as they are not the ones who cancelled the lease. R&J’s claim of conversion also has no grounds since based on the fact that other parties were claiming the personal property left behind, it was only right for T&C through the new tenant to seek a written document that could be used in case of any discrepancies.
