Login or Sign Up
Menu
Ask a New Question

Using a case example, make an argument for or against the following statement:

Consumers need to take the statement Caveat Emptor more seriously and fulfil their obligations under a contract irrespective of mistake of law or mistake of fact.

Article source: Lewis sold his car to a man claiming to be the famous English actor, Richard Greene. The man showed a (fake) studio pass with his name and details to Lewis to prove identity. He then ‘bought’ the car with a valueless cheque. Before Lewis had a chance to cash the cheque and discover the fraud, the man on sold the car to Averay, who bought the car without knowing of the fraud (buying in good faith). Lewis sued Averay for the value of the car.

can you write for or against in 50-100 words

In this case, I argue against the statement that consumers need to take the principle of Caveat Emptor more seriously and fulfill their obligations under a contract irrespective of mistake of law or mistake of fact. Lewis, the original car owner, was deceived by a fraudulent individual posing as a famous actor. The fraud was so convincing that Lewis had no reason to doubt the identity of the buyer or the authenticity of the offered payment. Averay, the subsequent buyer, bought the car in good faith, unaware of the fraud. Holding Averay responsible for the mistake of law or fact would be unfair and counterproductive to protecting innocent consumers. Under these circumstances, it is essential to emphasize the need for accountability on the part of the fraudulent individual, rather than burdening unsuspecting consumers.

Against: Consumers should not be expected to fulfill their obligations under a contract irrespective of mistake of law or mistake of fact. In the given case, Lewis sold his car to a man who fraudulently presented himself as a famous actor. It is unreasonable to expect Lewis to bear the loss and fulfill his obligations when he was deceived by the fraudulent buyer. Averay, as a subsequent buyer, should have exercised due diligence in verifying the authenticity of the seller and the car's ownership. Holding consumers strictly liable despite their honest mistakes would discourage trade and place an unfair burden on individuals who have been victims of fraudulent schemes.