Essay about July at the Multiplex

3330 Words Apr 3rd, 2013 14 Pages
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
…show more content…
The duty to mitigate damages is the responsibility of the plaintiff because the plaintiff injured by the breach of the contract cannot recover for losses that could have been easily avoided. In this case Tommy fulfilled his duty to mitigate damages and was not trying to recover for any damages that he could have easily avoided. Instead Tommy wants to file a lawsuit based on misrepresentation. A misrepresentation is a statement made that is not unified with the truth. There are two categories that misrepresentation can fall under: either innocent or fraudulent. When a misrepresentation is innocent it was made not intentionally to deceive the other party. A fraudulent misrepresentation is made with the intent to deceive with knowledge that it is false. Tommy wants to pursue legal action against Royal 16 Theater on the basis that they conducted fraudulent misrepresentation.
Prima Facie Case
The prima facie case that relates to this case between Tommy and Royal 16 Theater is Cao and Cao v. Nguyen and Pham. In Cao and Cao v. Nguyen and Pham the plaintiffs file a lawsuit against the defendant for fraudulent misrepresentation. They said that when they were attempting to buy a property the defendants claimed that the property was in fact a duplex and that multiple families could live there. The city building and safety department revealed that the property was not a duplex and could
Open Document