The case is one of alleged fraud, where the plaintiff claims to have been cheated off his money. After carefully analyzing the evidence and statements provided by both sides, the jury has found the litigant guilty of fraud due to the following reasons.
In the advertisement, Abigail specified that the puppy was a pure-bred chihuahua and specified a condition in the contract between her and the potential buyer. This led Alex to believe that he would receive a pure-bred chihuahua per the fulfillment of his side of the set contract. Therefore, the defendant wishes to call the handing over as a counteroffer. We consider this elaborate misinformation (Geffner v. Coca-Cola Co., 2019) since no prior information was provided that the agreement conditions had changed.
Secondly, the defendant decided to pocket the check, knowing that she wasn’t going to deliver a pure-bred chihuahua. This, by definition, is foul play and malfeasance as there was no initiative made to inform the plaintiff that he would not be receiving the puppy he expected.
In the defendant’s argument, there was a misprint of $100. If this was indeed a misprint, she ought to have noticed that the amount received from the plaintiff was not as per her listing, between $600 to $1000, and updated the terms of the contract, making it now Alex’s decision to back out or stick to the agreement’s new terms.
Therefore, just like in (Delgado v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 2017), as per case law, the jury supports the plaintiff’s cause of action and finds the accused guilty with the intent to commit fraud. The jury recommends that she pays back the complete $100, as seen in (Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. 2018), without general damages since the accuser, whose fault was trusting too quickly, has no intention of returning Wee Willy.
References
Geffner v. Coca-Cola CO, 928 F.3d 198 (2nd Cir.2019) Web.
Delgado v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1179 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) Web.
Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp, 889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) Web.