MPT 1

MEMORANDUM
To: Tania Miller

From: Applicant
Re: Williams v. Biggs d/b/a A-1 Automotive Center
Date: July 30, 2008
Out of the four statements, two are actionable on a cause fraud cause of action and two are not
actionable because they do not meet the cause of action elements. The two statements actionable
on a fraud cause of action have met all the 5 elements required and established in Franklin v.
Panera (Franklin Court of Appeal 2003): 1) material misrepresentation of fact; 2) made with
knowledge of falsity; 3) made with intent to deceive; 4) reasonable reliance by the plaintiff; and
5) loss by the plaintiff as a proximate result. The following is the analysis for the reached
conclusions on each statements.
1.
Biggs had found a notification from Dodge about a defect causing the gears to grind
down.
Even though, this statement was a material misrepresentation of fact by the
defendant since it complies with the definition of Foster v. Panera: A
representation is material if a reasonable person would consider it important in
deciding to enter in the transaction. A reasonable person would think that a
notification from Dodger regarding malfunctions important. Also, even though it
was made with knowledge of falsity since the notification never existed as
evidenced by Mission, and the intent is evidence in the effect that this
misrepresentation would have caused which was a profit for the defendants, the
plaintiff did not relied on the false representation, thus it does not meet one of the
elements to be actionable on fraud. He did not relied because told the defendants
not to take the transmission until he arrived. He didnt relied either when he
arrived because they did not give him that chance since the transmission was
already being repaired.
2.
Your transmission is going to fail and soon!

a.
This statement is a material misrepresentation because there are of fact that

determine that the transmission was failing other than this statement, furthermore,
the notification of Dodge did not existed. It is material because a reasonable
person would consider this statement important coming from a car professional
especially since Williams have no expertise in automotive repair. This statement
cannot be just a mere opinion as established in Madison v. Brooks since it falls in
the superior knowledge exception mentioned in Novotny v. Ford Farms. In this
case, the plaintiff as atechnician had a superior knowledge of the facts underlying
the opinion of the car, designed to deceived and mislead, and since it is false, thus
it is actionable.
3.
b.
The defendants had knowledge of the falsity because there were no technical
elements that would have created certainty of a possible failure. Their only
evidence was the notification that was false. Also, the fact that the mechanic was
joking with Biggs after the short test drive is evidence that he knew it was false
and that the a short test drive could not determine a transmission damage.
c.
When Biggs mentioned the repair options that are obviously lucrative for the
defendant, he revealed his intent to deceive or to induce reliance.
d.
Williams reasonably relied on defendants misrepresentation when he accepted to

rebuilt the transmission.
e.
Because of the misrepresentation he suffer losses such he delay his vacations, the
$128 Mission charged for the transmission leak caused by an improper
reinstallation of the transmission that would have not happened but for the
misrepresentation.
It would also help if we installed an extra cooler to keep it from running hot.
The statement regarding the cooler is not actionable on fraud since there is no evidence
that the statement was false and Williams did not relied on the representation. There is no
evidence that to install an extra cooler could actually help from running hot.
Nevertheless, even if this statement was a misrepresentation, Williams never relied
because he dropped that subject. Thus this statements fails under two elements and it is
not actionable on fraud.
4.
I guarantee the job.

a.
This statement is a material misrepresentation since he did not comply with it

when he stamped no guarantee of the invoice and because he didnt mentioned
that the guarantee had the attached condition of the extra cooler installed. It is a
material misrepresentation because knowing that there was no guarantee he would
not have picked up or even paid for the job.
b.
The defendant made this statement knowing of its falsity because he did not
disclaim the extra cooler condition.
c.
When he did not disclaim the condition for the guarantee he also revealed that he
did not had the intention to perform his guarantee at the time the promise was
made because he will have the argument that he knew that the extra cooler was
not installed and therefore the condition was never complied (Rogers v. Statewide
insurance).
d.
Even though the misrepresented guarantee statement happened after Williams

agreed to the repair, he reasonably relied on the guarantee when he paid and
picked up the car. If he would have relied on the guarantee probably he could
have requested further repairs, inspection or even deny to pay the bill.
-2-
e.
Williams loss was the $128 he paid for the transmission leak that the guarantee
would have covered and the time he lost because of the lack of compliment of the
guarantee that was obvious due to the leak and the fact that the repair was not the
one required, since they did not rebuilt a transmission but maintained the original
one.
-3-

MPT 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MPT 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MPT 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MEMORANDUM

To: Tania Miller

Your transmission is going to fail and soon!

This statement is a material misrepresentation because there are of fact that

Williams reasonably relied on defendants misrepresentation when he accepted to

I guarantee the job.

This statement is a material misrepresentation since he did not comply with it

Even though the misrepresented guarantee statement happened after Williams

You might also like