Norwalk Auto Mall sold a vintage Jaguar to George Montalbano for $34,000. In ord

Question

Norwalk Auto Mall sold a vintage Jaguar to George Montalbano for $34,000. In order to convince George to buy the vehicle, Jerry Morris, a sales rep for Norwalk, told him the radiator was new and the brakes had been replaced three weeks earlier. Neither of these things had been done and everyone at Norwalk, including Harry Jameson, the owner, knew about the false statements. George gave Jameson a check drawn on Scranton Bank and Trust for the $34,000. While on his way to Massachusetts, the car’s brakes failed and, after a quick investigation, George had discovered the fraud. He immediately stopped payment on the check. However, back home in Scranton, Jameson had indorsed and given the check to Calvin Calloway. Detail the remedies available to each party and give the legal reason the remedies would be available to each party. You will be graded on grammatical construction and application of the law in this situation.

Explanation / Answer

Ans:-

For the George Montalbano the bigest remedy was that he paid through check. The check takes minimum 24 hrs to complete the transaction and for future use he will has the transaction details. So, after investigation George could stop the transaction and prevent his $34.000 to go in waste.

While Harry Jameson the owner of Norwalk Auto Mall had the remedy that he had showed the statement of car quality which proves that car's brake was not defective. So , by showing this statements Jameson could take the money of car.

So, the check for transaction will work as a rem remedy for George while car's quality statement will work for Jameson as a remedy.

When a deal is made on the basis of false representation and it is proved that the buyer would not have bought the product if it had not been fir the misrepresentation made, then the seller can be held luabletooay fir the damages or any other remedy that the court thinks fit.

In this case, the car was sold by false representation by the sales rep of Norwalk Auto Mall about which the owner also had the knowledge but he also wilfully concealed the facts which he was ought to reveal. George if at all proves that he bought the car on the basis of the false statements made by the sales rep and the owner then he will get the difference. Since he discovers about the fraud just after few minutes/hours he stopped the cheque payment. In such case firstly Norwalk Auto Mall would be liable for making wilful false statements with the intention of selling the car for damaged or any other remedy that the court deems fit in the interest of justice. At the most what Norwalk can do is get the car back instead from George if court allows so. Apart from this there lies no bother remedy for the Mall. As it is rightly said that one who seeks justice must come to the court with clean hands.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse N
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.