Analysis of Liability for Fraud
A contract between Tommy and the Royal Theater exists because Tommy bought a movie ticket at the Royal Theater to watch “The Governator”. On top of that that, Royal theater can be liable for fraud based on a couple of reasons. First would be if the theater was aware and had the motive to deceive customers. Secondly, Royal Theater could be liable for fraud if their aim was to make people believe what they were saying was the truth and people actually believed them. Third, would be if people were affected by it and it harmed the customers.
Royal Theater could also be liable for innocent misrepresentation. This could be the case if Royal Theatre unintentionally failed on their claim. The question here would be if the theater actually had the intention to deceive customers. From looking at the facts, Royal Theater fulfilled their promise and played the movie. They also did not have the motive to deceive customers because the Royal Theater told everyone they were going to play “The Governator”.
One way Royal Theater could potentially be liable for fraud is if their intention was to not play the movie and if they refuse to compensate the customers. Royal Theater promised to play the movie and they succeeded. Even though there was a twenty minute …show more content…
and Mrs.Cau vs Mr Nguyen and Mrs. Pham, we realized in that case that there was in fact deceitful and fraudulent misrepresentation. The reason was that the sellers, which were Mr Nguyen and Mrs. Pham, purposely misinformed the buyers, Mr. and Mrs. Cao, that the property they were selling was a duplex when in fact it was not (Cao and Cao v. Nguyen and Pham, 2000). Mr. and Mrs Cao only found out when the city had told them that property did not meet the criteria for being a duplex. The sellers did disclose that the property was rented as two separate units, but unfaithfully lied on the advertisement and told the buyers that the property was a duplex when it was
A contract between Tommy and the Royal Theater exists because Tommy bought a movie ticket at the Royal Theater to watch “The Governator”. On top of that that, Royal theater can be liable for fraud based on a couple of reasons. First would be if the theater was aware and had the motive to deceive customers. Secondly, Royal Theater could be liable for fraud if their aim was to make people believe what they were saying was the truth and people actually believed them. Third, would be if people were affected by it and it harmed the customers.
Royal Theater could also be liable for innocent misrepresentation. This could be the case if Royal Theatre unintentionally failed on their claim. The question here would be if the theater actually had the intention to deceive customers. From looking at the facts, Royal Theater fulfilled their promise and played the movie. They also did not have the motive to deceive customers because the Royal Theater told everyone they were going to play “The Governator”.
One way Royal Theater could potentially be liable for fraud is if their intention was to not play the movie and if they refuse to compensate the customers. Royal Theater promised to play the movie and they succeeded. Even though there was a twenty minute …show more content…
and Mrs.Cau vs Mr Nguyen and Mrs. Pham, we realized in that case that there was in fact deceitful and fraudulent misrepresentation. The reason was that the sellers, which were Mr Nguyen and Mrs. Pham, purposely misinformed the buyers, Mr. and Mrs. Cao, that the property they were selling was a duplex when in fact it was not (Cao and Cao v. Nguyen and Pham, 2000). Mr. and Mrs Cao only found out when the city had told them that property did not meet the criteria for being a duplex. The sellers did disclose that the property was rented as two separate units, but unfaithfully lied on the advertisement and told the buyers that the property was a duplex when it was