Green Machine, Inc. Case Study

Case One: Green Machine, Inc.

Green Machine, Inc., a company devoted to producing eco-friendly household products, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Colossal Corporation. Green Machine's most famous and best-selling product is the Eco-Widget—a handheld, solar-powered device that recharges a variety of electronics on the go, including cell phones, laptops, and tablets. Colossal Corporation has uncovered an incident of theft at Green Machine: Approximately one month ago, over 400 Eco-Widgets were stolen from Green Machine's Adelphi, Maryland warehouse.

Shortly after the theft was discovered, Colossal Corporation's internal investigator, Ivan, found an online advertisement for the sale of exactly 400 Eco-Widgets. Ivan called the contact on the website and set up a meeting with the seller, Greg Smith. When Ivan, under the guise of being an interested purchaser of the widgets, inquired about Greg's distributor, Greg did not hesitate to reveal that he purchased the widgets from Rachel Jones, his long-time business associate. Ivan inspected the 400 Eco-Widgets, and confirmed they were indeed the same products that were stolen from the warehouse. He then requested a price quote from Greg and asked Greg to hold the products for him for seven days. Greg agreed.

Ivan arranged a meeting with Rachel the very next day, during which he pretended that he wanted to buy electronics from her. He asked Rachel if she had any Eco-Widget distributors she could recommend. Rachel said that she works directly with a Green Machine sales agent named Sam Simpson, and that she recently purchased 400 Eco-Widgets from him at a discounted price. Rachel also said that Sam is quite interested in expanding his business with her, and would provide Ivan with a great deal.

After his meeting with Rachel, Ivan checked the personnel records at Green Machine and identified Sam Simpson as a low-level warehouse employee who has been with the company for over 10 years. Sam's personnel record is spotless, with no prior personnel issues and no complaints. Sam is in charge of night security at the warehouse, and has no history in sales. As a night security guard, Sam is responsible for protecting the warehouse from theft, and is not permitted to sell products. After further investigation, Ivan found company e-mails between Rachel and Sam in which Sam posed as a sales agent. Reading the e-mails, it became obvious that neither Rachel nor Greg knew that the 400 Eco-Widgets were stolen. Ivan then collected video from all of Sam's shifts and was able to locate a film of Sam packing the Eco-Widgets into his personal car and driving them out of the warehouse parking lot.

Your task is to research the legal issues surrounding the stolen property. It is up to you to decipher which laws have been broken, and what the potential remedies are. The vice president wants you to prepare a narrated PowerPoint to present this information to the senior leadership team. Because of the sensitive nature of this case, the vice president has asked you to operate with total confidentiality and without involving the legal department.

PLEASE SEE NEXT PAGE FOR QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THIS CASE AND POWERPOINT REQUIREMENTS

    Can Colossal Corporation terminate Sam without any notice or a hearing? Why or why not? This question relates to employment-at-will.

• Yes, Sam can be fired for Documented Theft, which is a valid reason for firing employees.
• At-Will Employment in Maryland. Can be fired with or without notice
• Can also be fired for public policy violation and Good Faith and Fair Dealings violation.

    Did Sam, Rachel, or Greg commit any crimes and, if so, which crimes did each person commit? Fully explain your answer for each person as you explore the subject of business criminal law.

        Sam

• Malun in se - his actions were inherently both legally and morally wrong.
• Actus Reus – perfomed a guilty act
• Mens Rea – malicious intent
• Sam “stole” the property with intent to distribute. It means he had knowledge or should have had some inclination that his actions could result in a criminal offense.

• Under criminal law his actions were inherently wrong (Malun in se), he performed a guilty act (Actus Reus), his intent was malicious (Mens Rea) and Sam intentionally took property with intent to distribute. (Model Penal Code 223.1 and 223.6) Thus meaning he had knowledge or should have had some inclination that his actions could result in a criminal offense.

Rachel

Greg

•  Did not violate any law. More has to do with ethical issue here.

    Did Sam, Rachel, or Greg commit any torts and, if so, which torts did each person commit? Read about the law of torts in order to make your determinations.