For years Austin has managed Sam’s Place, a restaurant owned by Sam. Because of his old age, Austin had taken over all responsibilities of the restaurant for Sam. Shortly after Austin started managing the restaurant profits increased from $20,000/year to $200,000/year. Sam considered Austin a close friend, he even entrusted him to look after his personal finances and ran errands for Sam. Austin hosted Sam during every holiday as well because Sam’s children didn’t visit him often.
In any case, Sam must prove Austin and him had a special relationship. He must also prove that Austin used their special relationship to coerce him into forming a contract that was unfavourable. The relationship between Austin and Sam is special because Sam trusts …show more content…
Thus, the paintings were worth considerably less than what he paid for them. In fact, they were only worth 1/3 of the value the expert was quoted saying they were worth. Tom’s insurance company appraised the artwork at $200,000.
Tom showed the paintings at the grand opening of his art gallery on April 15 as planned and proceeded to contact the auction house the following day. Tom went to the auction company and explained his situation to them and they weren’t sympathetic. Notheby’s Auction House reiterated that they make no representation about the authenticity of the work, even though they take every step to validate the authenticity.
Tom now wants to commence legal action against Northeby’s Auction House for misrepresentation. The auction house made the mistake of advertising that the paintings were examined and valued by an “expert”. As stated in the textbook, expert opinions are equivalent to statements of fact. So, when Northeby’s Auction House advertised that the value and authenticity of the paintings were certified by an expert, they were, in essence, making a false statement of fact. This argument of misrepresentation will be the basis for Tom’s lawsuit against the Northeby’s Auction …show more content…
Due to a hail storm in January, the supplier in Flordia was unable to supply the roses to Lucy. Lucy tried to find other suppliers from Miami to fulfil her order, to no avail. In order to meet her obligations of the contract with Charles, Lucy decided to source identical roses from a different supplier but they were grown in Cuba.
When Charles received the roses grown in Cuba, he initially accepted them. Upon discovery that they weren 't grown in Flordia, Charles refused to pay and told Lucy that he was returning the roses. Charles claimed he would never sell “Cuban” roses despite the fact that the roses were identical to the ones grown in Flordia. It later became apparent that Charles had made another deal with a competitor for 25% less than the contract he made with Lucy and was looking for a way out of his contract with Lucy. She has now commenced legal action against Charles for breach of
In any case, Sam must prove Austin and him had a special relationship. He must also prove that Austin used their special relationship to coerce him into forming a contract that was unfavourable. The relationship between Austin and Sam is special because Sam trusts …show more content…
Thus, the paintings were worth considerably less than what he paid for them. In fact, they were only worth 1/3 of the value the expert was quoted saying they were worth. Tom’s insurance company appraised the artwork at $200,000.
Tom showed the paintings at the grand opening of his art gallery on April 15 as planned and proceeded to contact the auction house the following day. Tom went to the auction company and explained his situation to them and they weren’t sympathetic. Notheby’s Auction House reiterated that they make no representation about the authenticity of the work, even though they take every step to validate the authenticity.
Tom now wants to commence legal action against Northeby’s Auction House for misrepresentation. The auction house made the mistake of advertising that the paintings were examined and valued by an “expert”. As stated in the textbook, expert opinions are equivalent to statements of fact. So, when Northeby’s Auction House advertised that the value and authenticity of the paintings were certified by an expert, they were, in essence, making a false statement of fact. This argument of misrepresentation will be the basis for Tom’s lawsuit against the Northeby’s Auction …show more content…
Due to a hail storm in January, the supplier in Flordia was unable to supply the roses to Lucy. Lucy tried to find other suppliers from Miami to fulfil her order, to no avail. In order to meet her obligations of the contract with Charles, Lucy decided to source identical roses from a different supplier but they were grown in Cuba.
When Charles received the roses grown in Cuba, he initially accepted them. Upon discovery that they weren 't grown in Flordia, Charles refused to pay and told Lucy that he was returning the roses. Charles claimed he would never sell “Cuban” roses despite the fact that the roses were identical to the ones grown in Flordia. It later became apparent that Charles had made another deal with a competitor for 25% less than the contract he made with Lucy and was looking for a way out of his contract with Lucy. She has now commenced legal action against Charles for breach of