Northeby can argue that they have a disclaimer that states their return policy of 14 days for a full refund. It also goes on to explain that even though they try to make sure each piece is authentic, there is no guarantee in regards to authenticity. Tom failed to comply with the terms of the return policy which was on the back of the auction ticket. Tom’s insurance company determined the paintings non originals on February 25th. This was 10 days after the purchase date, Tom still had four more days to return the paintings. Instead of returning the paintings Tom made the decision to present the pieces in his art gallery on April 15th. This was two months after he discovered the paintings were not authentic, which shows he was trying to reap the benefit of the contract before he tried to return the paintings for more than the purchase price. Tom was negligent as he failed to address the issue with the unauthentic paintings at the time it occurred like a reasonable person would have.
Tom will argue that there was misrepresentation as he was not informed of the return policy. This will most likely not be considered …show more content…
Even if frustration was present, there are other steps Lucy could have taken to minimize damages caused by her failure to execute the contract.
Charles would argue that he was not informed of the frustration, and Lucy did not promptly express repudiation. If the breach was anticipatory, Charles could have sued for breach of contract but now he can sue for all loses, including loss of profit and advertising. He was also unable to mitigate his damages as he was unaware that Lucy would not be able to perform on the contract.
The likely result of the action would be passed in favor of Charles. As a result, Charles would be entitled to damages due to Lucy’s failure to comply with the contract and lack of communication with
Tom will argue that there was misrepresentation as he was not informed of the return policy. This will most likely not be considered …show more content…
Even if frustration was present, there are other steps Lucy could have taken to minimize damages caused by her failure to execute the contract.
Charles would argue that he was not informed of the frustration, and Lucy did not promptly express repudiation. If the breach was anticipatory, Charles could have sued for breach of contract but now he can sue for all loses, including loss of profit and advertising. He was also unable to mitigate his damages as he was unaware that Lucy would not be able to perform on the contract.
The likely result of the action would be passed in favor of Charles. As a result, Charles would be entitled to damages due to Lucy’s failure to comply with the contract and lack of communication with