Cases should be related to this article review, choose TWO of them:
- Actor Tom Selleck contracted to purchase a horse named Zorro for his daughter from Dolores Cuenca. Cuenca acted as though Zorro were fit to ride in competitions, when in reality the horse was unfit for this use because of a medical condition. Selleck filed a lawsuit against Cuenca for wrongfully concealing the horse’s condition and won. A jury awarded Selleck more than $187,000 for Cuenca’s misrepresentation by
- When the powerful narcotic painkiller OxyContin was first marketed, its manufac- turer, Purdue Pharma, claimed that it was unlikely to lead to drug addiction or abuse. Internal company docu- ments later showed that the company’s executives knew that OxyContin could be addictive, but kept this risk
a secret to boost sales and maximize short-term profits. Subsequently, Purdue Pharma and three former exec- utives pleaded guilty to criminal charges that they had misled regulators, patients, and physicians about Oxy- Contin’s risks of addiction. Purdue Pharma agreed to pay $600 million in fines and other payments. The three for- mer executives agreed to pay $34.5 million in fines and were barred from federal health programs for a period of fifteen years. Thus, the company’s focus on maximizing profits in the short run led to unethical conduct that hurt
profits in the long run.
- Coleman Holdings LP bought a parcel of real estate subject to setback restrictions imposed in a document entitled “Partial Release of Restrictions” that effectively precluded building a structure on the property. Lance and Joanne Eklund offered to buy the parcel from Coleman, intending to combine it with an adjacent parcel and build a home. Coleman gave the Eklunds a title report that referred to the “Partial Release of Restrictions,” but
they were not given a copy of the release. Mistakenly believing that the document released restric-
tions on the property, the Eklunds did not investigate fur- ther. Meanwhile, Coleman also mistakenly believed that the setback restrictions had been removed. After buying the property and discovering the restrictions, the Eklunds filed a suit in a Nevada state court against Coleman, seeking rescission of the sale. The court ordered the deal rescinded. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the order. “The parties made a mutual mistake in their mutual belief that the parcel had no setback restrictions.”
- John Robert Johnson, Jr., took a truck that needed repair along with its fifteen-ton trailer to Bubba Shaffer, doing business as Shaffer’s Auto and Diesel Repair, LLC. The truck was supposedly fixed, and Johnson paid the bill, but the truck continued to leak oil and water. Johnson returned the truck to Shaffer, who again claimed to have fixed the problem. Johnson paid the second bill. The problems with the truck contin- ued, however, so Johnson returned the truck and trailer to Shaffer a third time.
Johnson was given a verbal estimate of $1,000 for the repairs, but Shaffer ultimately sent an invoice for $5,863. Johnson offered to settle for $2,480, the amount of the initial estimate ($1,000), plus the costs of parts and shipping. Shaffer refused the offer and would not return Johnson’s truck or trailer until full payment was made. Shaffer retained possession for almost four years and also charged Johnson a storage fee of $50 a day and 18 percent interest on the $5,863. Johnson sued for unfair trade practices and won. The court awarded him $3,500 in damages plus attorneys’ fees and awarded Shaf- fer $1,000 (the amount of his estimate).