June 12, 2012
Mr. Plex, Owner, Royal 16 Theater
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
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 contract exists between Tommy and Royal 16 Theater this examination of the facts will help determine whether Royal 16 Theater is liable at all for fraud. The offer made to Tommy by the Royal 16 Theater complex was a unilateral contract. That means that only one of the parties involved made a promise and they made that promise for an action. When Tommy bought his ticket for “The Governator” movie, this solidified the unilateral contract between him and the Royal 16 Theater complex. Tommy took the action of buying the movie ticket at the front kiosk and in exchange for that action the Royal 16 Theater complex promised him the opportunity to go inside, find a seat in the theatre, and watch the movie he paid for. Since all of the requirements were met in the contract this made the contact between Tommy and Royal 16 Theater valid. Valid contracts are contracts in which all of the legal requirements are met making the contract binding to both parties. The contract between Tommy and Royal 16 Theater is a valid contract because it was legal and both parties met the requirements to make that contract binding. Tommy fulfilled his part of the contract buy purchasing a ticket for the movie “The Governator” and the movie theater performed their part of the contract by screening the movie. Tommy knowingly knew about the contract he was entering into when he gave the Royal 16 Theater his acceptance. The duty of acceptance falls upon both parties seeking to enter into the contract. In a unilateral contract the party seeking to perform an action for a promise must accept the offer made by the offeror by the terms and in the method requested by the offeror. In this case Tommy was the offeree and the Royal 16 Theater was the offeror. Tommy accepted the offer made by Royal 16 Theater and did so in the method requested; making both the offer and acceptance valid for all terms and purposes in this contract. There are certain limitations...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document