Student Legal Reasoning

RULES IDENTIFIED BY EACH SUBJECT


In Column 3, Relevant Rules are noted, and irrelevant rules are marked with an “X.”


GROUP 1


1

Happy with purchase

Didn’t inquire

Must be law

X

X

X

2

No damages, no suit

Damages

3

Breach of K–intentional misrepresentation

Salesmen always tell you that stuff

Misrepresentation

Puffing

4

Should have inquired

X

5

Signed and didn’t inquire

Think there would be law requiring disclosure

X

X

X

6

Wasn’t forced or coerced

X

7

Law requiring disclosure of prior owner?

Failure to read in detail

X

X

8

Dealer took advantage

Samos didn’t inquire

X

X

9

Samos had opportunity to get more information

“Executive driven” doesn’t mean anything

No damages

X

Puffing

Damages

10

No fraud or misrepresentation

Wasn’t big who was owner and how it was used

Should have inquired

Misrepresentation

Materiality

X



GROUP 2


11

Might turn on what K said

Unequal bargaining power

Doesn’t say salesperson took advantage

BUT language/education, salesman should have taken more care

Any significance to difference in price

X

X

X

X


X

12

No problem with language

No pressure

No problems with car

Samos didn’t inquire

X

X

Damages

X

13

His duty to read the K before he signs it

Dealer should have been aware of limited      knowledge

Odd sold without warranty

X

X


X

14

Samos should have examined title

Any reasonable person would assume it was leased

X

Reasonable reliance

15

Even if he can get attorneys’ fees, he has risk of pursuing case

No statute; must go to common law

X


X

16

Wasn’t under duress

Could have been misled by “executive driven”

Not sure whether misrepresentation made car better

No malfunction; no damages

X

Puffing

Materiality

Damages

17

Misrepresented that it was a used car

Must be some sort of damages

“executive driven” – ambiguous

Misrepresentation

Damages

Materiality

18

Unequal bargaining power

“Executive driven” ambiguous

X

Materiality

19

English as a second language

Signed K; no inquiry

“executive driven” could be ambiguous

X

X

Materiality

20

Wasn’t forced or pushed

No serious malfunction, no damages

X

Damages



GROUP 3


21

No damages

Was odometer rolled back?

Did mechanic look at it?

Were documents falsified?

Samos wasn’t pressured

“as is”

Could have done a VIN search

Not sure that “high ranking employees” makes a difference

Damages

X

X

X

X

X

X

Materiality

22

No problems, no damages

Dealer did not deceive

Didn’t want a car previously driven by strangers, should have told dealer

Damages

Misrepresentation

23

Inconsistency in facts: “spur of the moment”

Don’t see materiality in misrepresentation

Fact issue

Materiality

24

Are they required to define terms like “executive driven”

Big company v. small consumer

What damages might he be entitled (What else?)

Handwritten v. typed sales order

Is dealer required to disclose prior owners

Was he asked to read all information?

X


X

Damages

X

X

X

25

No damages

“No warranty”

Fraud

“Executive driven”/”Great used” car – selling points

Title said “enterprise Auto Rental”

Damages

X

Misrepresentation

Puffing


Reasonable reliance

26

Relying on “executive driven” wouldn’t make a difference

No detriment

Materiality


Damages

27

Contract claim

Fraud

He didn’t ask

He didn’t ask anyone to interpret

X

Misrepresentation

X

X

28

Misrepresentation

Reliance

Not to his detriment

Misrepresentation

 Reliance

Damages

29

Can’t sell a car without a warranty

Failure to disclose rental company

Level of education

Manner is which “executive driven” was       disclosed

Burden on dealer

X

X

X

Misrepresentation


X

30

No warranty

Odometer

He signed

Title

Dealer should have taken care

Undue influence

K was beef

X

X

X

X

X

X

X