July at the Multiplex
DATE: June 12, 2012
TO: Mr. Plex, Owner, Royal 16 Theater
FROM: Team 8
RE: Analysis of Liability for Fraud
Based off of your request, we have completed an analysis concerning Royal 16 Theater’s liability for fraud assumed by the customer, Tommy. Please contact us if any additional information is needed.
July at the Multiplex
Executive Summary
What are the standards of selling a service or product so the customer will not get furious? If we tried out best but they are still unsatisfied, what kind of response should we give? In this case “July at the Multiplex”, the plaintiff, Tommy, was not satisfied with the service that was provided with Royal 16 Theater. He demanded the money that he paid be returned. The theater owner, Mr. Plex refused to do so. Therefore, Tommy was outraged and filed a lawsuit against him.
Mr. Plex has two choices to make. The first is to negotiate settlement money or defend the lawsuit. As a group, we will give our best knowledge of business law, statistics, and ethics to help Mr. Plex choose the ideal decision. First of all we will compare the fraud and misrepresentation of business law. Furthermore, we conducted tests on Hypothetical test and a Confidence Interval calculation. Lastly, under the ethics theory of cost-benefit analysis, justice vs. fairness and rights, we decided on the best action that Mr. Plex is supposed to take.
July at the Multiplex
Purpose: This report is intended to analyze the liability for fraud, the results of the statistical conclusions conducted by the movie theater, and the ethical issues involved with screening commercials before the scheduled movie.
I. Analysis for Liability of Fraud The analysis for liability of fraud will explain in detail the offer, acceptance, and possible misrepresentation involved in the contract between Tommy and the Royal 16 Theater. The analysis will also cover the Cao and Cao v. Nguyen and Pham case and draw conclusions based on the prima facie case. Assuming that a
TO: Mr. Plex, Owner, Royal 16 Theater
FROM: Team 8
RE: Analysis of Liability for Fraud
Based off of your request, we have completed an analysis concerning Royal 16 Theater’s liability for fraud assumed by the customer, Tommy. Please contact us if any additional information is needed.
July at the Multiplex
Executive Summary
What are the standards of selling a service or product so the customer will not get furious? If we tried out best but they are still unsatisfied, what kind of response should we give? In this case “July at the Multiplex”, the plaintiff, Tommy, was not satisfied with the service that was provided with Royal 16 Theater. He demanded the money that he paid be returned. The theater owner, Mr. Plex refused to do so. Therefore, Tommy was outraged and filed a lawsuit against him.
Mr. Plex has two choices to make. The first is to negotiate settlement money or defend the lawsuit. As a group, we will give our best knowledge of business law, statistics, and ethics to help Mr. Plex choose the ideal decision. First of all we will compare the fraud and misrepresentation of business law. Furthermore, we conducted tests on Hypothetical test and a Confidence Interval calculation. Lastly, under the ethics theory of cost-benefit analysis, justice vs. fairness and rights, we decided on the best action that Mr. Plex is supposed to take.
July at the Multiplex
Purpose: This report is intended to analyze the liability for fraud, the results of the statistical conclusions conducted by the movie theater, and the ethical issues involved with screening commercials before the scheduled movie.
I. Analysis for Liability of Fraud The analysis for liability of fraud will explain in detail the offer, acceptance, and possible misrepresentation involved in the contract between Tommy and the Royal 16 Theater. The analysis will also cover the Cao and Cao v. Nguyen and Pham case and draw conclusions based on the prima facie case. Assuming that a