Person LS, an African American, read an advertisement in the newspaper of a local motorcycle dealer about the sale of a electronic scooter EZ for $ 1,699. Person LS reached the dealer to purchase the scooter, but found that the scooter was already sold. The salesperson offered the higher model FZ, for the previous one for $ 1,999.LS unwillingly decided to buy scooter FZ and wished to purchase the scooter on credit. The clerk in the credit department told LS that a cosigner is required to get a loan. When LS talked about this concern to the manager, he assured her that the clerk is mistaken. LS after seven months from purchase, received a letter from the manufacturer notifying her about recalling the model because of the defect in the braking system. To find: The action of FTC when a merchant fails to deliver the order that was made through a website.

Question

Bart Inc. developed a new medical rub called “NoPain Muscular Rub” that can be used in the event of muscular back pains. Bart Inc. via an online advertisement stated that they are willing to pay $5,000 to anyone who used their muscle rub “Nopain” for one week and still suffers from back pains thereafter. Bill who suffers from back pains, saw the online advertisement and decided to purchase “NoPain Muscular Rub”. He used it for a full week, but nevertheless still suffered from back pains. Based on the fact that the muscular rub “Nopain” did not relieve his back pains, he sued Bart Inc. for the monies that were promised. However, Bart Inc. argued that the advertisement was not an offer, but an invitation to invite offers. They further argued that at no point in time did Bill make an offer and as such, they are not bound to pay him any monies, since the parties did not create any binding agreement. Advised Bill on his legal options stating relevant case law as well as using the IRAC…

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 24, Problem 2RE

Summary Introduction

Case summary: Person LS, an African American, read an advertisement in the newspaper of a local motorcycle dealer about the sale of a electronic scooter EZ for $1,699. Person LS reached the dealer to purchase the scooter, but found that the scooter was already sold. The salesperson offered the higher model FZ, for the previous one for $1,999.LS unwillingly decided to buy scooter FZ and wished to purchase the scooter on credit. The clerk in the credit department told LS that a cosigner is required to get a loan. When LS talked about this concern to the manager, he assured her that the clerk is mistaken. LS after seven months from purchase, received a letter from the manufacturer notifying her about recalling the model because of the defect in the braking system.

To find: The action of FTC when a merchant fails to deliver the order that was made through a website.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Bart Inc. developed a new medical rub called “NoPain Muscular Rub” that can be used in the event of muscular back pains. Bart Inc. via an online advertisement stated that they are willing to pay $5,000 to anyone who used their muscle rub “Nopain” for one week and still suffers from back pains thereafter. Bill who suffers from back pains, saw the online advertisement and decided to purchase “NoPain Muscular Rub”. He used it for a full week, but nevertheless still suffered from back pains. Based on the fact that the muscular rub “Nopain” did not relieve his back pains, he sued Bart Inc. for the monies that were promised. However, Bart Inc. argued that the advertisement was not an offer, but an invitation to invite offers. They further argued that at no point in time did Bill make an offer and as such, they are not bound to pay him any monies, since the parties did not create any binding agreement. Advised Bill on his legal options stating relevant case law as well as using the IRAC…

Mary, a keen pottery collector, saw a notice for an auction at James Pottery Limited on September 30th 2017 in the Daily News. She traveled 300 kilometers to attend the auction in order to bid for a particularly rare item of Mozart pottery, specifically mentioned in the list of items to be auctioned. However, when she got to the auction site she found a notice outside, stating that the auction had been canceled. Mary went into a nearby antique shop and saw an item of the same type of pottery she had come to bid for, which the price ticket stated $5000. Mary indicated to the shop owner, Anthony, that she was only willing to pay $4,000 for it. However, Anthony said he would sell it for $4,500. Mary then indicated to him that she would like time to think about it over lunch; Anthony thereafter, agreed not to sell it before Mary returned. However, when Mary returned to buy the pottery, she found that Anthony had already sold it to someone else, who had paid $4500 for it. In the context…

Mary, a keen pottery collector, saw a notice in the Daily News for an auction at James Pottery Limited on September 30th 2022. She traveled 300 kilometers to attend the auction in order to bid for a particularly rare item the “Mozart Pottery”, specifically mentioned in the list of items to be auctioned. However, when she got to the auction site, she found a notice stating that the auction had been canceled. Mary thereafter proceeded to a nearby antique shop and saw on display in the window, the identical “Mozart Pottery” priced at $10,000. Mary told the shop owner, Anthony, that she was only willing to pay $8,000 for it. However, Anthony indicated that he is willing to sell the pottery for $9,500. Mary then indicated to him that she desires some time to think it over and after lunch she will advise him. Anthony subsequently, agreed not to sell the identified pottery, until she return after lunch. However, Anthony forgot his promised to Mary and sold it to John for $9,500 before…