Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Business Law
The sale of the Rolex and Louis Vuitton bags by Mike Merchant is a misrepresentation because he is claiming to potential customers like Suzy and Samuel that the goods are real. Intentional misrepresentation which is also known as fraud is described when the party intends to induce another person to rely on this misrepresentation(Cheeseman). Mike could argue that he did not know that the Rolexes and Louis Vuitton bags were fake and that they were just seconds. Suzy had the belief that the handbag was real when she purchased it from Mike. This makes Mike liable to Suzy for misrepresentation because Suzy paid for the bag thinking it was real. Suzy could try and receive the money back for the bag purchased in court. She could argue that Mike did not make it completely clear that the bags he was selling were seconds, which are not of the same quality as the actual product but it is still authentic. Suzy could also argue that Mike was advertising the goods as real, authentic products. Mike’s defense could be that Suzy unjustifiably believed that information given to her because her boyfriend bought a Rolex watch from Mike thinking that the product was fake. Why did Suzy think that products were real but her boyfriend did not? It could be argued that Suzy did not do enough research and did not do her due diligence when buying the product. In this case with Mike and Suzy, Mike will most likely win the case because he was advertising the products as seconds so it is reasonable to assume that the products are fake. We know how much Suzy paid for the fake bag, but how much is the price of a real Louis Vuitton bag? This answer to this question could be the difference between winning and losing the case. If in fact, the $999 price that Suzy paid is the same price an authentic bag is being sold for, then she should be awarded the amount back. If the price she paid was a discount, because it was advertised as a second, then Mike would most likely not owe her the money back.
The determination that makes Mike liable or not has to do with the buyer. Liability can change when the buyer buys something thinking that the product is real, and a buyer buying something knowing it is a fake version of the product. Samuel buys a Rolex from Mike knowing when he purchased it that the product is fake and continues to buy the product. Mike would not be liable to Samuel for misrepresentation because Samuel knew when he was buying the product that it was fake and proceeded anyway. If Samuel took Mike to court for misrepresentation, he would most lose the case. Samuel bought the Rolex watch from Mike for $99, a real Rolex watch typically retails for thousands of dollars so he knew it was fake. Since both Mike and Samuel knew that the Rolex was fake, it could be said that the two of them committed criminal conspiracy. Louis Vuitton and Rolex would take Mike to court for copyright violation. Mike has violated the company’s copyright laws and protections that they have put on all of their products. Louis Vuitton and Rolex can sue Mike for violating their copyright law and be awarded the money Mike makes by using their brand and products. Mike’s only argument to Louis Vuitton and Rolex would be that the copyright protection did not cover the changes he made to the products. Ultimately, Louis Vuitton and Rolex would win this case because Mike was selling the products as authentic even though they were fake. This means that Mike would be liable to Louis Vuitton and Rolex for the sale of fake replicas of their products intending to deceive buyers into thinking it was real and making a profit off of it.
Suzy’s best friend Betty is committing harassment to Suzy and Samuel when she claims in public that the couple are liars and thieves and that they buy knock-offs. Harassment is a repeated annoyance with threats. Since this is happening in public and people can hear what is going on Betty is also committing slander against Suzy and Samuel. Slander is oral defamatory to another person. In this case, the people passing by when this altercation is happening are the ones that hear the things that Betty is saying about Suzy and Samuel. As a result of Betty’s slander and harassment, Suzy and Samuel begin to have nervous breakdowns which could also be defined as battery since the couple are experiencing injuries as a result of things Betty is saying about them. Samuel and Suzy can take Betty to court for slander and try and receive some sort of damages. Suzy could claim that Betty is liable for slander because her boss was walking by and overheard the interaction which later promoted Suzy’s boss to fire her. After all, she was not bringing the right image to the company she worked for. Betty’s argument against the case of slander would be that she was not telling lies and that Suzy and Samuel were, in fact, buying fakes. Betty would win this case because slander must be a false statement. In Betty’s defense, she would say that the things she said about Suzy and Samuel were in fact true meaning that it was not slander. Concerning the case of battery with Suzy and Samuel against Betty, the couple can argue that they were physically harmed due to Betty’s vulgar and hostile tone by experiencing nervous breakdowns. The battery is defined as indirect physical contact between the perpetrator and the victim, which results in some sort of injury(Cheeseman). Betty’s defense to this claim would be that she did not physically touch either of the two and that she never intended for any sort of physical harm to occur to the couple as a result of a verbal argument. Betty could also claim that Suzy and Samuel completely made up that they had nervous breakdowns. It is hard to identify if an individual had a nervous breakdown in the past unless there were witnesses there to attest to the demeanor of Suzy and Samuel at the time of the incident. Betty would win the case of battery against Suzy and Samuel because there was never any physical contact between the two parties in this regard and a verbal argument it would be tough to prove that Betty intended to cause harm to them not know that they would have mental breakdowns.
When Suzy takes her Christian Louboutin heeled shoe off and swings it at Betty, missing but causing her to fall on the ground and injuring her head, she is going to claim that Suzy assaulted her. When taking the assault claims to court, Betty is going to say that Suzy intended to hit her with the heel of the shoe even though she missed completely and did not hit her at all. Suzy still swung at Betty so there is clear intent to hit her, in which Betty would sue Suzy for monetary compensation for the injuries she sustained to her head when she fell trying to dodge the swing of the shoe. Since Betty was harassing Suzy and Samuel, Suzy is going to claim that the actions in which she swung her shoe at Betty were made in self-defense because they were having mental breakdowns. Suzy can also claim that in light of her mental breakdown she was scared and only raised the shoe at Betty because she was defending herself and Samuel. If Suzy has no record of previous violence, then she was likely acting as a result of the mental breakdown and was not looking to cause violence for no reason. Assault is defined as the threat of immediate harm or offensive contact, and actual physical contact is not necessary(Cheeseman). Suzy would be liable for assault against Betty even though she did not physically hit her, she still has the actions that she was going to and as result, Betty had reason to believe that she was in immediate danger and could be harmed. Samuel would not be liable for assault because his girlfriend is the one who raised the shoe at Betty and he was just standing there not taking any actions against Betty for his mental breakdown. Betty could then sue Suzy for damages that she sustained from the assault such as medical bills that occurred because of it. Although Betty did start the argument Suzy is still liable because she escalated the encounter from a verbal altercation to an attempt to cause physical harm to Betty.
When Lenny the bodyguard slips and falls on the sidewalk subsequently breaking his ankle, the restaurant Le Bon Hotdog could be liable. Lenny would claim that they should not have left their garbage bags out for a long period because they knew that the sanitation department workers were on strike. Le Bon Hotdog would argue that the grease from their garbage bags did not cause Lenny to slip and that it was from the unfinished sidewalk. The restaurant can also claim that it is the sanitation department that is liable because it is their job to pick up the garbage on a certain schedule. Le Bon Hotdog can also claim that they are not liable because Lenny was running down the sidewalk at an unsafe speed not watching where he is going making it easier to slip and hurt himself. Ultimately, Le Bon Hotdog would not be liable to Lenny for damages based on his injuries. There is no way to foresee that grease from their garbage bags would leak causing a slippery sidewalk.
Lenny can also sue the New York City Sanitation Department for damages for not picking up the trash in a timely manner because the workers are on strike. The sanitation department can argue that by not picking up the trash there was no foreseeable danger to citizens walking on the sidewalk in front of Le Bon Hotdog. Lenny’s counter-argument would be that the sanitation department has a duty to carry out their job and collect the trash. Even if there is a worker strike the sanitation department should have found other ways to pick up the trash or resolve the strike promptly so that it would not affect the citizens. The department of sanitation would not be liable for damages because there is no danger in leaving trash out for a couple of days.
Broken concrete left on the sidewalk by the AJ construction company can be considered gross negligence because they did not do their job. The AJ employees knowingly left the sidewalk in disrepair with broken pieces in favor of getting home. Gross negligence can be defined as showing little care in or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard conduct and often described as willful misconduct and reckless behavior(Cheeseman). The construction companies defense would be that Lenny slipped on the sidewalk because of the grease from the trash can from Le Bon Hotdog, placing the blame on either the restaurant or the sanitation department. Lenny could have fallen due to him rushing to get over to the fight in which he was not being careful and pushing people out of the way. It is up for debate how exactly Lenny fell, he could have slipped on the grease or tripped over the pieces of the sidewalk or he could have just tripped from rushing over to the fight. We would not find out the real answer unless there were eyewitnesses that so Lenny and could clearly see how he fell. Lenny’s argument against the AJ construction company is that they failed to properly fix the sidewalk and left pieces out just because the workers wanted to get home the day before. The AJ construction company is liable for damages to Lenny because of the carefree attitude in which the workers left the sidewalk that was in bad shape just because they wanted to leave early and clearly did not care about the citizen’s safety. Lenny could then sue AJ construction company for the medical bills he received when he was in the hospital as well as missed compensation because he would be unable to work for some time due to the broken ankle.
When Lenny falls and then hits Pam in the face with the piece of concrete, injuring her face and breaking her phone, he is committing battery. The battery is defined as unauthorized harmful physical contact that results in some sort of injury(Cheeseman). Lenny’s argument against the battery is that he never meant to hit Pam, he meant to hit Suzy who was in the middle of a fight. In Lenny’s defense, he was trying to break up the fight because he is a bodyguard and unintentionally hit Pam. Regardless of if Lenny meant to hit Pam or not he still hit and injured her meaning that he is liable for battery. Pam can then sue Lenny for damages, which could include hospital bills, possible plastic surgery if her face was badly damaged from the hit as well as the money to buy her a new phone since he also broke her phone.
It could also be argued that Lenny committed assault on Suzy. Lenny had attempted to hit Suzy in the head with a piece of concrete. Assault is the threat of immediate harm and physical contact is not necessary(Cheeseman). Just because Lenny ended up not hitting Suzy with the concrete she was still the intended target. Lenny’s defense to these assault claims are that he was trying to break up the fight between Suzy and Betty. Lenny only threw the piece of concrete because he was unable to get up a break up the fight personally because he broke his ankle. Suzy’s argument against Lenny is that the fight was a verbal altercation and resulted in a mental breakdown, it was not a physical fight where it needed to break up imminently. Suzy argues that the throwing of the piece of concrete from the sidewalk was unnecessary for the circumstances and that it was extremely dangerous. This dangerous action by Lenny makes him liable for assault on Suzy because although he did not hit her, he meant for the projectile to hit her and cause harm to her. Suzy can then sue Lenny for damages based on the assault and be awarded money because of trauma induced by the near-miss of the concrete thrown at her.
Works Cited
- Cheeseman, Henry. Legal Foundations of Business. Pearson.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.