Law Case Study: Dismissing First and Second Counts Case Study

Exclusively available on IvyPanda Available only on IvyPanda

This matter is before the Superior Court of Arizona led by Defendants Hanna N. Porch and the Law Offices of Hanna N. Porch (“Porch Defendants”) to dismiss Michelle Berry’s first and second counts. The Porch Defendant presume that the Counts on Fraud based on misrepresentation and Breach of warranty should be granted a relief due to Rule 44-2004(B) of Arizona Revised Statutes.

We will write a custom essay on your topic a custom Case Study on Law Case Study: Dismissing First and Second Counts
808 writers online

The request is supported by diverse Statutes of Limitations in Arizona securities cases. The duration of most statutes regarding fraud in purchase or sale securities is generally one to two years long. For example, the charge can be dismissed unless it is placed within two years after the discovery of the fraud (Mitchell). The plaintiff, Michelle Barry, recognized the fraudulent actions in June 2019; however, the case was brought to court only in November 2021. Additionally, the statute of limitations for the claim of fraud based on misrepresentation is a two-year statute defined in A.R.S. Sec. 12-542 (Mitchell). Therefore, the charges on the first count should be receded immediately due to the extension of its Statute of Limitations.

The second count is inadmissible for bringing accusations on the breach of warranty as well. Firstly, no solid evidence can be presented as the warranty was not mentioned in the signed contract. Oral unrecorded, and therefore doubtful, discussions cannot be considered appropriate evidence, as well as proof of guilt. In addition, the request to decline the second count is supported by the statute of limitations in terms of the breach of an oral contract. The right to prefer charges on the breach of oral contract is allowed within 3 years based on the relevant statute shown in A.R.S. Sec 12-543 (Mitchell). Hence, the plaintiff is no more eligible to press charges against the defendant on that issue; therefore, the count should be declined due to the expiration of the statute of limitations period.

Work Cited

Mitchell, R. D. (n. d.). Statutes of Limitation in Arizona securities cases. Robert D. Mitchell: Effective Solutions for Complex Financial Disputes. Web.

Print
Need an custom research paper on Law Case Study: Dismissing First and Second Counts written from scratch by a professional specifically for you?
808 writers online
Cite This paper
Select a referencing style:

Reference

IvyPanda. (2022, December 17). Law Case Study: Dismissing First and Second Counts. https://ivypanda.com/essays/law-case-study-dismissing-first-and-second-counts/

Work Cited

"Law Case Study: Dismissing First and Second Counts." IvyPanda, 17 Dec. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/law-case-study-dismissing-first-and-second-counts/.

References

IvyPanda. (2022) 'Law Case Study: Dismissing First and Second Counts'. 17 December.

References

IvyPanda. 2022. "Law Case Study: Dismissing First and Second Counts." December 17, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/law-case-study-dismissing-first-and-second-counts/.

1. IvyPanda. "Law Case Study: Dismissing First and Second Counts." December 17, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/law-case-study-dismissing-first-and-second-counts/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Law Case Study: Dismissing First and Second Counts." December 17, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/law-case-study-dismissing-first-and-second-counts/.

Powered by CiteTotal, referencing generator
If you are the copyright owner of this paper and no longer wish to have your work published on IvyPanda. Request the removal
More related papers
Cite
Print
1 / 1