Larceny. In February 2001, a homeowner hired Jimmy Smith, a contractor claiming to employ a crew of thirty workers, to build a garage. The homeowner paid Smith $7,950 and agreed to make additional payments as needed to complete the project, up to

$15,900. Smith promised to start the next day and finish within eight weeks. Nearly a month passed with no work, while Smith lied to the homeowner that materials were on "back order." During a second month, footings were created for the foundation, and a subcontractor poured the concrete slab, but Smith did not return the homeowner's phone calls. After eight weeks, the homeowner confronted Smith, who promised to complete the job, worked on the site that day until lunch, and never returned. Three months later, the homeowner again confronted Smith, who promised to "pay


Larceny
A Georgia state statute provides that "[a] person commits the offense of theft by taking [larceny] when he unlawfully takes or, being in lawful possession thereof, unlawfully appropriates any property of another with the intention of depriving him of the property, regardless of the manner in which the property is taken or appropriated." A jury found Smith guilty of this crime. Smith ap-pealed to a state intermediate appellate court, which affirmed his conviction. The court explained, "In a case such as this, when the alleged taking occurs when a defendant fails to perform under a contract with the victim, the real issue is whether the defendant accepted or retained the victim's money with no intention to satisfy his obligations under the contract. Here, Smith abandoned the project, promised to return the unearned portion of the down payment, then failed to do so. The jury was authorized to find Smith guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of theft by taking." The court added, "Under the statute, the phrase ‘regardless of the manner in which the property is taken or appropriated' is a catch-all phrase rendering our theft by taking statute broad enough to encompass theft by conversion, theft by deception or any other of the myriad and even yet-to-be-concocted schemes for depriving people of their property."

Business

You might also like to view...

Toro Company recognized $655,000 of cost of goods sold in 2010, in addition its implementation of a just-in-time inventory system allowed it to reduce its inventory from $325,000 at the beginning of the year to $230,000 at the end of 2010 . How much cash did Toro spend for inventory in 2010?

a. $655,000 b. $980,000 c. $560,000 d. $620,000

Business

When interviewing a potential employee, managers may need to decide whether the person has real talent and potential or is simply well prepared for the interview. What processes is the manager using in this case?

a) Attention and organization b) Internal and external attribution c) Attention and retention d) Retrieval and judgment

Business

What must a plaintiff demonstrate for liability to attach under Section 1 of the Sherman Act?

Business

Employer convenience, customer preference, or co-worker preference is not sufficient to support a(n):

a. Bona Fide Occupational Qualification. b. minimum wages. c. religious practice. d. employment commission.

Business