Baron Vs Pealin Case

Starting from the beginning, the original post the sale, on November 1, Dr. Peters wanted to sell 850 tubes of toothpaste. In the sale ad it states "Write me if wanting to accept". Therefore, Sam did in fact put a check in the mail the same day, November 1. This is considered to be a part of the mailbox rule in which "an acceptance sent via the postal system or by courier is effective when sent" ((Luizzo, A., 2016, pg. 127). Therefore, the acceptance of the sale is a contract between Sam and Dr. Peters. However, a written contract should have followed; as it states in the Statutes of Fraud that in order to be legally binding, sales dealing with "personal property of $500 or more" must "be in writing to be legally enforceable" (Luizzo, A., 2016, pg. 201). The two parties have entered into a valid and express contract.

But the law has evolved to where the seller has to disclose material, latent defects that they are aware of pertaining to the home that is being sold. Failure to disclose defects is a part of the evolution of the law. Under failure to disclose, if the seller is found o have known about a material defect, not disclosed the defect, and the buyer relies on the seller’s word to their detriment, the seller is found to be liable to failure to disclose. For example, in Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d. 625, the Johnson’s know of the leaky roof in the home that they were selling to the Davises, but the represented the home as if there were no defects. The Courts rules in the Davises favor because the Johnsons had a duty to disclose defects that are material so that the buyer will not rely detrimentally on them. The same rule applies in the Powell v. Knox case. The current case distinguishes from the Johnson v. Davis case because Mr. Knox testified that he had no knowledge of the contaminated soil in the backyard, because he and his late wife never attempted to plant veggie only flowers. He also testified that his hearing is not that best, which prohibited him from hearing the parties across the street. The jury found that Mr. Knox was not had liable for failure to disclose due to Mr. Knox not having prior knowledge of the defects and the Powells willingness to overlook the issue for the chandelier in Mr. Knox’s

Did Westby commit fraud? Fraud constitutes the making of false statements (1) with the knowledge of its falsity or reckless indifference to the truth (2) the intent that the listener relies on it (3) the result that the listener does so rely on it, and (4) the consequence that the listener is harmed.

Duddy decided to create a film production company that produces films on bar-mitzvahs, to earn money to continue buying pieces of land that surrounds a lake in St. Agathe des Monts. Knowing of an upcoming bar-mitzvah for the son of a man named, Mr. Cohen, Duddy confidently went to Mr. Cohen’s house and told him about his production company and the director, a middle aged man by the name of Peter John Friar, who would be directing the film in hopes of him accepting. However, Mr. Cohen was not accepting Duddy’s offer and was giving him a rather hard time. Therefore, Duddy decided to lie. He said that he had made a deal with another man, Mr. Seigal, and that he would be filming his son’s bar-mitzvah when it arrived. Little did Duddy know Mr. Cohen was already aware that he had lied. “I happen to know that you’re not making a movie for Seigal. O.K.?”(Richler, 124). Thereafter, when the last plot of land was being sold Duddy became very desperate. He did not have enough money to pay for the land, and everyone he asked for a loan. As a last resort he forged his friend, Virgil’s, signature on a cheque from his cheque book for the amount need for the piece of land. “Duddy took a quick look at Virgil’s bank balance, whistled, noted his account number and ripped out two cheques. He forged the signature by holding the cheque and a letter Virgil had signed up to the window

E.g., Ransom v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 43 Cal.2d 420, 427 (Cal.1954). Even so, the undisputed evidence shows truthful answers would have caused Navigators' underwriter to reject the application or charge a higher premium. Navigators adduced testimony to that effect.3 And it is manifest from the scope of misrepresentations: Top and Chu lied about several important facets of their business – its size, its kind of work, as well as its pending and planned projects – which would affect an insurer's risk calculation and, therefore, its decision to accept an application and the premium it would charge. See LA Sound USA, 156 Cal.App. 4th 1259, 1269

A dealer sold a new car to Raymond Smith. The sales contract contained language expressly disclaiming liability for personal injuries caused as a result of defects in the car and limiting the remedy for breach of warranty to repair or replacement of the defective part. One month after purchasing the auto, Smith was seriously injured when the car veered off the road and into a ditch as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism of the car.

This essay aims to portray each individual party’s viewpoint on the incident that occurred regarding The Macgregor Hotel and the claimants Peter and Beatrice, in addition the Crown Prosecution Court will also be scrutinising the events which took place that evening.

Another legal definition can be found under the Lanham Act where it is defined as, “Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, a claim can be made against a defendant for false or misleading advertising. For a claim against a defendant for false advertising, the following elements are met and the plaintiff must show: (1) defendant made false or misleading statements as to his own products (or another’s); (2) actual deception, or at least a tendency to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience; (3) deception is material in that it is likely to influence purchasing decisions; (4) the advertised goods travel in interstate commerce; and (5) a likelihood of injury to plaintiff. However, the plaintiff does not have to prove actual injury.” The Lanham Act has a more specific and

There is a dispute between Mikel Burley and Robin Le Poidevin about whether or not the B-theory of time can give its supporters a reason to be less afraid of death. Burley says even on Le Poidevin’s understanding of the B-theory, atheists shouldn’t be comforted. He says this because the widespread B-theoretic account of our attitudes towards the past and future prevents treating our fear of death as unjustified. The paper looks at his argument and provides a weak defense of Le Poidevin. It says that while Burley correctly sees a tension with a non-revisionary approach to our normal emotional life, he doesn’t separate the source of that tension. This paper addresses what it is like to not have something to look forward to after death. It is

Fischer describes how in the house, “debauchery became the norm” (20), and so did, “brutality and carnage” (20). Debauchery, brutality, and carnage are not usually what most people will associate with being normal. Fischer then describes how later on the residents “[delved] into mutilation, murder, necrophilia, [and] cannibalism” (21). This description just adds to the fact that the things that went on in this house are from being normal. The history Matheson created for the house makes it cross the boundaries most people have and that is not including the fact that the house is now also a home to evil spirits. Some might even feel that the history behind the house is more haunting than the house itself. Matheson does this in order to show that a haunting does not only result from ghosts and spirits, but can come from almost anything. Even just a brief history of something that happened years ago can cause more fear than being inside a haunted

Although Bob exhibits a higher degree of ethics and legal responsibility than Stan, Mike, and John, ethics and legal responsibility are not always in alignment. In this case, John completes the order for Quality Lumber with Bob’s name on the sales order. Quality Lumber has an established client relationship with White Lumber. The current state of the economy makes the existing client relationship even more valuable. Bob suspects that the lumber that is being purchased will be used illegally as scaffold plank. Scaffold plank has to meet strict requirements and grading for safety and usage. Failure to abide by the requirements could result in accident, death, legal liability, and fraud. If the lumber being used as scaffold plank fails resulting in injury or death, then White Lumber may be held legally liable since they had firsthand knowledge about how the lumber was going to be used. It may also constitute as fraud because White Lumber is knowingly selling lumber that will be used as scaffold plank.

, (Gilman, 1892; Bauer, 1998, p. 1) “That spoils my ghostliness, I am afraid, but I don’t care-there is something strange about the house- I can feel it. I even said so to John one moonlight evening, but he said what I felt was a draught and shut the window.” (Gilman, 1892; Bauer, 1998, p. 2) Here, it shows that John was denying the fact that his wife was having problem by creating excuses. Subconsciously, when a person denies something they tend to create excuses as show in the story.

At the time, to own or stay at a haunted house is considered to be the height of fashion. There is something romantic about a haunted house as that means something forbidden went on in the house before a great tragedy. However, the colonial house they have been able to lease, while not haunted, is “queer;” or why else would they have been able to lease the house so cheaply.

Cases of false affirmation occurred where the buyer was convinced to buy something by the false statements of the seller;

It is within the agent’s apparent authority to sell a property on behalf of the principal to make descriptions of the property to the buyer. However, if the representations made are false, the principal will be liable for the acts of that agent where the leading case is Aliotta v Broadmeadows Bus Service Ltd (1988) A.T.P.R. 40 – 873 which the court held that the agents has mislead the plaintiff by not revealing all the material information to the plaintiff.