Best Engineering

Best Engineering’s Options

As the defendant in this case, Best Engineering has three typical choices it can take to this claim by American Products Corporation (APC); it can state General Denial, set a counter claim against APC, or admit to wrongdoing and pay back the amount lost due to their incompetence. The legal rational to state general denial is that they can claim that they had nothing to do with the crashes and that it was as actually an interior problem on APC’s part, this would help clear their name of any wrongdoings and that it was a computer crime that would not contractually hold them to this fault. This plea is then generally followed up with a counterclaim in which they counter-sue the plaintiff (APC) for public defamation and slander. This would legally help the company by way in which they could state it was not their contractual agreement to keep the systems protected from cyber-attacks and can try to turn the public’s opinion around in which APC would look like a company that cannot atone for its own faults. While the third option is for Best Engineering to pay back the amount that it feels it owes to APC (which is generally settled outside of court) for the technical issue and lack of fulfilling its obligation to APC. This would be legally the best way to avoid too much media coverage in which they could have their company name blasted as “non- trustworthy” and unwilling to follow up on its contractual agreements (remedy by money).