Ques #1;Explorica, Inc., was founded to compete with EF;Cultural Travel, which dominated the market in;global tours for high school students. Setting Exploricas;tour prices lower than EFs became an important;Explorica objective. EFs tour prices were accessible;through the firms Web site, where the user who;desired information would enter various pricedetermining;factors, such as desired date of departure;and destination. The Web site would translate the;users preferences to a special code, decipherable;only by the sites servers and human operators, and;would submit the code to the server. The server;would determine travel options and prices suited to;the users specifications, and then send them to the;users computer. In view of the large number of possible;factor combinations that a user might submit to;EF, Explorica realized that manually obtaining price;information on every tour that EF could offer would;be nearly impossible. Explorica therefore wrote a;scraper program, using code information provided;by Explorica Vice President Phil Gormley, a former;employee of EF. The scraper automatically submitted;codes representing all possible factor combinations;to EFs server and then recorded the results in a;spreadsheet. Exploricas use of the scraper resulted in;a compilation of 60,000 linesthe rough equivalent;of eight telephone booksof data. Explorica used;this information to undercut EFs prices. When EF;learned of Exploricas actions, EF sued Explorica;alleging civil violations of the Computer Fraud and;Abuse Act (CFAA). Section 1030(a)(4) of the CFAA;is violated when a person knowingly, and with intent;to defraud, accesses a protected computer without;authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by;means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud;and obtains anything of value. EF sought a preliminary;injunction that would bar further use of the;scraper and would require the return of all materials;generated by the scraper. Was EF entitled to the;preliminary injunction?;Ques # 2;R&J Associates leased certain commercial real estate;from T&C Associates, Inc., for a one-year period;beginning May 1. The lease required that T&C give;R&J 10 days notice before canceling the lease. R&J;operated the leased premises as a bar that featured;seminude dancers but discontinued the business during;the following March when it lost a necessary;dance permit. In late March and early April, T&C;noticed that the bar was not open and learned that;R&J had lost its permit. R&J was behind on its rent;at this time. Utility companies were seeking to shut;off service to the premises because R&J was also;behind on its utility bills. When T&C informed R&J;that its monthly rent would be higher if it renewed;the lease, R&J said it had no interest in renewing.;For the above reasons, T&C took possession of the;premises in April. T&C, however, did not give R&J;the 10 days notice referred to in the lease. T&C;leased the premises to a new tenant later that month.;At approximately the same time, R&J demanded the;return of certain personal property items it had left;on the premises. T&C told R&J to contact the new;tenant, adding that there should be no problem with;the return of the items of personal property. R&J;contacted the new tenant, who told R&J to submit a;list of its personal property because other parties;were also claiming rights to what had been left on;the premises. R&J did not submit this list and did not;contact T&C again about the personal property items. Later, R&J sued T&C for conversion of;the;personal property. Did R&J have a valid conversion;claim?
Paper#32664 | Written in 18-Jul-2015Price : $22