ISSUE Under Arkansas case law regarding the tort of fraud, does an online purchaser of a sword have a claim for actual fraud, when (1) the sword that the seller displayed online turned out to be a replica; (2) the seller was gifted the sword from his brother, and only pulled the sword from the sheathing once prior to placing it in storage; (3) the seller afforded the buyer the opportunity to inspect the sword prior to the sale but the buyer declined due to time constraints; (4) the seller purported himself to be credible as to having knowledge of East Asian weaponry that the buyer considered upon purchasing the sword sight unseen; (5) the sword that was purchased for $50,000 is only worth $1,000?
BRIEF ANSWER The Court will probably not find the defendant guilty of actual fraud. Even though there is strong evidence that the seller did deceive the buyer, it will likely not prove that all of the five elements have been satisfied. The first element is not disputed due to the fact that the sword was supposed to be an original work, but a falsification of material was discovered when the buyer obtained a certified appraisal coupled with a metallurgical test that later revealed the sword to be a replica of inferior quality. The Court will likely find that the second element is not satisfied because Budd did not knowingly misrepresent the sword. Budd relied on the statements of his brother as to the authenticity coupled with the fact that the sword was only removed from the sheath once, accordingly the evidence is not sufficient to support that Budd intentionally misrepresented the sword. There is no dispute in the third element because even though the buyer declined to inspect the sword, the record shows that the seller provided the buyer with the opportunity to do so before purchasing. The Court will likely find the fourth element to be in favor of the defendant because he did not intentionally hold himself out to have to peculiar knowledge about the sword. Merely attending a four-day workshop in East Asian weaponry while being employed at an East Asian Museum for only a month is not sufficient to prove that Budd had peculiar knowledge of the subject matter. Finally, the fifth element the Court will likely find is that there is no dispute that the buyer suffered damages in the amount of $50,000, because the sword delivered to her by the seller was only worth $1,000 as evidenced by the valuation given in the appraisal. For these reasons the Court will most likely find the defendant is not guilty of actual fraud, because under Arkansas law, all of the elements are not satisfied. FACTS A memo from O-Ren Ishii dated Oct. …show more content…
12th, 2016, discusses an action between two Arkansas residents regarding an alleged fraud committed against Beatrix Kiddo (Beatrix), when she made an online purchase of a Hattori Hanzo “Black Mamba” sword from Budd Sidewinder (Budd), in the amount of $50,000. The Hattori Hanzo is a highly collectable Japanese sword that utilizes the finest quality Hanzo steel and is produced only in limited numbers. Beatrix, having recently reunited with her daughter Bebe Charmer (Bebe), wished to purchase Bebe a “Black Mamba” edition sword as a gift for her 16th birthday, before their scheduled move to Florida. On May 20th 2016, Beatrix engaged in an online discussion forum soliciting others for the purchase of a museum quality Hattori Hanzo “Black Mamba” with the original sheath. The next day, Budd replied with an email offering to sell Beatrix his Hattori Hanzo “Black Mamba” for $50,000. In the email, Budd affirmed that his brother had gifted him the sword on his birthday. Furthermore, Budd specified that he had only pulled the sword from the sheathing once before he placed it in storage. Additionally, Budd made reference to attending a four day work study of East Asian weapons while working at the local museum of East Asian Art. The work study included information about the history and forging of Hanzo swords among other things. The email also included a picture of the “Black Mamba” sword with the sacred Hanzo mark concealed because the sword was inside the sheath.
BRIEF ANSWER The Court will probably not find the defendant guilty of actual fraud. Even though there is strong evidence that the seller did deceive the buyer, it will likely not prove that all of the five elements have been satisfied. The first element is not disputed due to the fact that the sword was supposed to be an original work, but a falsification of material was discovered when the buyer obtained a certified appraisal coupled with a metallurgical test that later revealed the sword to be a replica of inferior quality. The Court will likely find that the second element is not satisfied because Budd did not knowingly misrepresent the sword. Budd relied on the statements of his brother as to the authenticity coupled with the fact that the sword was only removed from the sheath once, accordingly the evidence is not sufficient to support that Budd intentionally misrepresented the sword. There is no dispute in the third element because even though the buyer declined to inspect the sword, the record shows that the seller provided the buyer with the opportunity to do so before purchasing. The Court will likely find the fourth element to be in favor of the defendant because he did not intentionally hold himself out to have to peculiar knowledge about the sword. Merely attending a four-day workshop in East Asian weaponry while being employed at an East Asian Museum for only a month is not sufficient to prove that Budd had peculiar knowledge of the subject matter. Finally, the fifth element the Court will likely find is that there is no dispute that the buyer suffered damages in the amount of $50,000, because the sword delivered to her by the seller was only worth $1,000 as evidenced by the valuation given in the appraisal. For these reasons the Court will most likely find the defendant is not guilty of actual fraud, because under Arkansas law, all of the elements are not satisfied. FACTS A memo from O-Ren Ishii dated Oct. …show more content…
12th, 2016, discusses an action between two Arkansas residents regarding an alleged fraud committed against Beatrix Kiddo (Beatrix), when she made an online purchase of a Hattori Hanzo “Black Mamba” sword from Budd Sidewinder (Budd), in the amount of $50,000. The Hattori Hanzo is a highly collectable Japanese sword that utilizes the finest quality Hanzo steel and is produced only in limited numbers. Beatrix, having recently reunited with her daughter Bebe Charmer (Bebe), wished to purchase Bebe a “Black Mamba” edition sword as a gift for her 16th birthday, before their scheduled move to Florida. On May 20th 2016, Beatrix engaged in an online discussion forum soliciting others for the purchase of a museum quality Hattori Hanzo “Black Mamba” with the original sheath. The next day, Budd replied with an email offering to sell Beatrix his Hattori Hanzo “Black Mamba” for $50,000. In the email, Budd affirmed that his brother had gifted him the sword on his birthday. Furthermore, Budd specified that he had only pulled the sword from the sheathing once before he placed it in storage. Additionally, Budd made reference to attending a four day work study of East Asian weapons while working at the local museum of East Asian Art. The work study included information about the history and forging of Hanzo swords among other things. The email also included a picture of the “Black Mamba” sword with the sacred Hanzo mark concealed because the sword was inside the sheath.