Question 1: (Employment Law)

Issues

The legal issues, in this case, are dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation of information.

Relevant Law

Federal legislation bans auto businessmen and women from misrepresenting either the mechanical condition or the terms and conditions of the warranty of their selling products, especially cars[footnoteRef:1]. For instance, one may have a claim against the car dealer if they have relied on a fraudulent or misleading claim to purchase a problematic vehicle. There are generally two types of claims relating to disappointing car transactions. A misstatement must not be included in the contract. In many situations, the alleged deception happened during pre-contract talks. [1: Klement A, and Procaccia Y, ‘An Economic Analysis Of Reliance In Market Fraud And Negligent Misrepresentation’ [2013] SSRN Electronic Journal]

Further, it should be noted that it may constitute misrepresentation if critical facts are not disclosed. For example, inability, in talks with a professional services business, to reveal overdue bankruptcies. Davis v. Re-Trac Mfg. Corp., 149 N.W.2d 37, 38–39 is one case file (Minn. 1967)[footnoteRef:2]. In such a scenario, when a party performs an independent inquiry as to the accuracy of its representation, and when the examination is insufficient to reveal the untruth of the representation, that party cannot avoid accountability by saying the other party must not have believed him thus making it unjustifiable. [2: Dr. Arthur Horowitz implanted a Dalkon Shield, an intrauterine contraceptive device made and supplied by A.H. Robins Company, in Janice Cohen in February 1972. She felt agony while walking, exercising, and having sexual relations while wearing the Dalkon Shield. Cohen was in Garberville, California, when the gadget was withdrawn, some five months after it was implanted. Cohen claims that the doctor who removed the Dalkon Shield informed her she had an infection and that the irritant was the Dalkon Shield. In this scenario, there were two concerns; 1Is there a legitimate argument as to whether Appert has misled Cohen and when Cohen has found the alleged deception in an attempt to toll the limitation status? 2. Is there really a serious question as to whether Appert has fraudulently concealed the facts supporting Cohen’s accusations of legal misuse and violation of fiduciary obligations?]