Contract Interference by Previous Employer

Whether or not Bennett was correct in his allegation and whether or not his former employer was justified in its act were the questions presented to the court in the case of William Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Company. The answers to these questions turned on the court\u27s interpretation of the following issues: what acts constitute actionable interference; was the contract of employment between the plaintiff and the defendant, and/or the negative covenant contained therein, valid; was the existence of a contract crucial or even necessary for an action to lie; could there be any justification for the defendant\u27s acts; and lastly, could the court award a summary judgment in such a case or must the case be decided on its facts as determined by a jury? These questions and their answers also constitute the basic issues of this topic-interference by a previous employer

Ultraviolet mutagenesis and inducible DNA repair in Caulobacter crescentus

The ability to reactivate ultraviolet (UV) damaged phage ΦCbK (W-reactivation) is induced by UV irradiation of Caulobacter crescentus cells. Induction of W-reactivation potential is specific for phage ΦCbK, requires protein synthesis, and is greatly reduced in the presence of the rec-526 mutation. The induction signal generated by UV irradiation is transient, lasting about 1 1/2–2 h at 30°C; if chloramphenicol is present during early times after UV irradiation, induction of W-reactivation does not occur. Induction is maximal when cells are exposed to 5–10 J/m 2 of UV, a dose that also results in considerable mutagenesis of the cells. Taken together, these observations demonstrate the existence of a UV inducible, protein synthesis requiring, transiently signalled, rec -requiring DNA repair system analogous to W-reactivation in Escherichia coli . In addition, C. crescentus also has an efficient photoreactivation system that reverses UV damage in the presence of strong visible light.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/47557/1/438_2004_Article_BF00329935.pd