July at the Multiplex

DATEJune 12, 2012 TOMr. Plex, Owner, magnificent 16 battleground FROM police squad 8 RE analytic estimateing of indebtedness for Fraud Based collide with of your request, we have completed an synopsis concerning kingly 16 field of honors liability for twaddle assumed by the client, Tommy. Please contact us if any(prenominal) additional information is exacted. July at the Multiplex Executive digest What be the standards of selling a cooperate or product so the customer go forth non queer furious? If we tried kayoed trump out that they are still unsatisfied, what kind of response should we dampen?In this causa July at the Multiplex, the plaintiff, Tommy, was not satisfied with the service that was provided with magnificent 16 firm. He demanded the money that he paid be returned. The theater owner, Mr. Plex refused to do so. Therefore, Tommy was discoverraged and filed a crusade against him. Mr. Plex has two excerpts to make. The commencement exercise is to negotiate settlement money or defend the lawsuit. As a group, we exit give our best noesis of employment law, statistics, and morals to back up Mr. Plex choose the ideal decision. head start of every told we entrust compare the fraud and thaumaturgy of business law.Furtherto a greater extent, we conducted tests on Hypothetical test and a say-so Interval calculation. Lastly, under the ethics theory of salute-benefit analysis, justice vs. fairness and rights, we dogged on the best action that Mr. Plex is supposed to take. July at the Multiplex decision This report is intended to analyze the liability for fraud, the upshots of the statistical conclusions conducted by the word-painting theater, and the ethical issuances involved with screening commercials before the scheduled photographic film.I. analysis for Liability of FraudThe analysis for liability of fraud will explain in detail the offer, requireance, and possible legerdemain involved in the lease betwixt Tommy and the imperial 16 line of business. The analysis will also cover theCao and Cao v. Nguyen and Pham faux pas and draw conclusions based on the prima facie case. Assuming that a fix exists among Tommy and lofty 16 Theater this examination of the features will help determine whether empurpled 16 Theater is liable at all for fraud. The offer make to Tommy by the empurpled 16 Theater complicated was a slanted cringe.That means that only one of the parties involved made a promise and they made that promise for an action. When Tommy bought his ticket for The Governator scene, this solidified the unilateral reduce between him and the royal stag 16 Theater complex. Tommy withalk the action of purchase the delineation ticket at the front kiosk and in transform for that action the lofty 16 Theater complex promised him the opportunity to go inside, find a seat in the theatre of operations, and watch the movie he paid for. Since all of the requirements were met in the c ontract this made the contact between Tommy and regal 16 Theater valid.Read alsoCase 302 July in MultiplexValid contracts are contracts in which all of the statutory requirements are met reservation the contract binding to some(prenominal) parties. The contract between Tommy and Royal 16 Theater is a valid contract because it was legal and some(prenominal) parties met the requirements to make that contract binding. Tommy finish his part of the contract buy purchase a ticket for the movie The Governator and the movie theater performed their part of the contract by screening the movie. Tommy k right awayingly knew ab forth the contract he was de but into when he gave the Royal 16 Theater his credence.The duty of acceptance travel upon both parties seeking to enter into the contract. In a unilateral contract the party seeking to perform an action for a promise moldiness accept the offer made by the offeror by the damage and in the method requested by the offeror. In this case Tommy was the offeree and the Royal 16 Theater was the offeror. Tommy accepted the offer made by Royal 16 Theater and did so in the method requested making both the offer and acceptance valid for all basis and purposes in this contract. There are certain limitations on the recovery of damage enforce upon the contract that both Royal 16 Theater and Tommy entered into.The duty to decline damages falls onto Tommy, the plaintiff, in this specific case. The duty to mitigate damages is the responsibility of the plaintiff because the plaintiff injured by the breach of the contract cannot recover for losses that could have been easily avoided. In this case Tommy fulfilled his duty to mitigate damages and was not trying to recover for any damages that he could have easily avoided. Instead Tommy wants to file a lawsuit based on misrepresentation. A misrepresentation is a direction made that is not unified with the truth.There are two categories that misrepresentation can fall under eith er innocent or fraudulent. When a misrepresentation is innocent it was made not intentionally to deceive the separate party. A fraudulent misrepresentation is made with the intent to deceive with knowledge that it is false. Tommy wants to pursue legal action against Royal 16 Theater on the basis that they conducted fraudulent misrepresentation. Prima Facie Case The prima facie case that relates to this case between Tommy and Royal 16 Theater isCao and Cao v. Nguyen and Pham. InCao and Cao v.Nguyen and Phamthe plaintiffs file a lawsuit against the defendant for fraudulent misrepresentation. They said that when they were attempting to buy a holding the defendants claimed that the property was in fact a duplex and that multiple families could get thither. The city construct and safety department revealed that the property was not a duplex and could not become a duplex due to building and safety issues. The plaintiffs so filed a lawsuit against the defendants for fraudulent misrepr esentation. The first psychometric test court dismissed the charges and found that the buyers did not lift the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation.When the plaintiffs appealed the results the foster court reversed the decision of the first court and adjudicated that the plaintiffs did prove fraudulent misrepresentation. The property sold by the defendants caused reasonable reliance upon the plaintiffs and on that point were damages because of the reliance. The property was sold to them on the idea that the property was indeed a duplex when the defendants had prior knowledge that it in fact was not a duplex. The defendants knew that the plaintiff would rely on the representations and conducted business anyway.This case relates short to the situation passing game on between Tommy and Royal 16 Theater because both cases involve the plaintiffs trying to recover for fraudulent misrepresentation. In our opinion, Royal 16 Theater does have some liability for fraudulent misrep resentation when they tell their customers the movie is supposed to start at 100 pm, but they play xx minutes of previews before. A simple solution to this issue could be resolved by printing disclaimers on the tickets sold to a customer that warns them about the commercials before they enter into the theater.That way when customers come to accept the offer from the theater they are bound by the method of acceptance and they agree to the commercials playing before the movie starts. The simple disclaimer will go a long way and will ensure that on that point will be no more plaintiffs like Tommy pursuing legal action against the theater again (Mallor, 2009).II. Statistical Analysis According to the focussing of Royal 16 Theater, they need to decide which courses of actions are more advisable, considering negotiating a settlement of any lawsuit or defending vigorously.The behold is the key out to which course of action will be taken. If the result shows that the percentage of plu rality resenting the ads is 10%, the consortium should consider negotiating the settlement. However, if the percentage is less than 10%, Royal 16 Theater should vigorously defend. We have performed a survey which asked coke random patrons whether they resent the ads. The result came out to be 6 out of 100 resented the ads. This information itself is not enough. We have to conduct several more tests to have a more solid idea of whom and how many resented the ads.First of all, we have to begin with a Hypothesis test, which means that we conduct a test to understand whether 10% of moviegoers resent the ads or less than 10% of moviegoers resent the ads. Our Ho( naught supposal) should be p = 10% and our Ha( alternative action/hypothesis) should be p 10%. In this case, the sample proportion would be 6100 = . 06. The calculation is going to be done apply a self-assurance level of 95%. The pledge breakup look for this analysis is p=p z ? p(1-p)n where p is the sample proportion, z is the level confidence from the 95% confidence level and n would be the sample number. = . 06, z = 1. 96, n = 100. If we ensure in the numbers into the formula wherefore we will get p E (E is faulting = z ? p(1-p)n). E would be . 04655. Therefore, p= . 06 . 04655 = 0. 1066, . 01345. Thus, the confidence interval for this analysis would be . 01345 and 0. 1066 which are 1. 345% and 10. 66% if written in percentage form. This says that this result is not accurate and the actual result whitethorn vary between this interval. In this case, since our void hypothesis which is 10% lies between the confidence interval, then the abortive hypothesis is not to be jilted at the moment.We have to perform further research and calculation. By this result alone, we suggest that Mr. Plex should consider the settlement agreement. Type I and II fracture Before we start with the consortium, here are the definitions of each misconduct fit to the textbook Statistic for caper and Economics * A d isplay case I error is an error if we carry off the correct null hypothesis * A type II error is an error if we fail to reject the false null hypothesis. Therefore, the Type I and Type II errors are wrong judgments in the testing of null and alternative hypotheses.With the null hypothesis Ho and the alternative Hypothesis Ha, only one of them is true. The result of hypothesis testing moldiness accept Ho when it is true and reject Ho when Ha is true. If the result of Ho is true, but we reject it then we will make a type I error. On the other hand if Ha is true, but we fail to reject it then we make a type II error. As stated before, the Ho(Null Hypothesis) is when p = 10% and the Ha(Alternative action/Hypothesis) is when p 10%. To illustrate more, A type I error would happen if 10% of moviegoers resent the ads, and they reject it.It would be a solicitudeless decision if they decide not to consider the settlement money, even though they understand that their null hypothesis lies be tween the Confidence interval. Going deeper with error, a type II error would happen if less than 10% of moviegoers resent the ads, and they fail to reject it. It would be a waste of money if they agree with the settlement when in fact, they do not need to and should defend the lawsuit. Hypothetical Statistical Analysis This fourth dimension, we have a survey of 300 patrons.The result states that 18 out of 300 resent the ads and this 6% is inadequate for finding the answer. Once again we have to conduct a hypothesis test and confident interval calculation. Just like before, the null hypothesis for this would still be p = 10% and the alternative action would still be p 10%. If 300 patrons are to be randomly selected instead of 100 patrons, and in the end 18 out of 300 patrons agree with Tommy to resent the ads, then the sample proportion would be 18300 = . 06. The calculation is going to be analogous as above.This time it is still going to be calculated using a confidence level of 95%. The confidence interval formula for this analysis is p=p z ? p(1-p)n where p is the sample proportion, z is the level confidence from the 95% confidence level and n would be the sample number. p = . 06, z = 1. 96, n = 300. Then if we plug in the numbers into the formula we will get p E (E is Error = z ? p(1-p)n). E would be . 02687. Therefore, p= . 06 . 02687 = 0. 08687, . 03313. Thus, the confidence interval for this analysis would be . 03313 and 0. 08687 which are 3. 3313% and 8. 87% if written in percentage form. This time, the null hypothesis does not lie between the confidence interval. Thus, the null hypothesis has to be rejected and the alternative action accepted. Therefore, we suggest that it would be bump not to do the settlement and instead defend the lawsuit. Additional education There are many other factors which we are not sensitive of that might affect the survey. The most common one is how the survey is taken. In statistics, there are a few types of conducti ng surveys and each would lead to assorted outcome.There are Simple Random Sample, Stratified Random Sample, bunch together Sample, Systematic Sample, etc. Beside these types, the time and place of the survey is also a huge factor. To illustrate, there are more teens in a certain area and more elders in a certain are. What teens think and what elders think are two different things. Thus, the place is also a factor. Furthermore, the time is also a significant factor. Surveys taken on weekdays night and pass by and bynoon would result in a different outcome. To conclude, we swear that the survey might not be very accurate survey.III. Ethical Analysis The ethical issues that may be involved in display twenty minutes of commercials before the screening of the movie can be set forth under three main categories the cost-benefit analysis, fairness, and the theory under which we take Royal 16 Theater should act under. Cost-Benefit Analysis Schmidt (2012) believes cost-benefit analys is is when both collateral and negative consequences of a proposed action are going to be summarized and then weighed against each other (Cost benefit, para. 1).Using this analysis will help to understand which is the best route for the Royal 16 Theater to take between their costs and benefits. Costs The negatives or cost of Royal 16 Theater masking twenty minutes of commercials before the movie is customers can of course become upset such as Tommy had. If there are more moviegoers that hear of Tommys lawsuit, many could follow in his footsteps because they believe in his position on the social function. Another cost the Royal 16 Theater will have due to commercials is they will need to pass on their advertisers and stakeholders pleased. According to investopia. om (2012) stakeholders are investors, employees, customers, and supplier that have an interest in an enterprise or project (Definition, para. 1). It will invariably cost the theater something to come on each stakeholde r happy. By showing commercials, the investors will get their moneys worth for finding advertisers to invest their time with Royal 16 Theater. Employees will not have any benefits from commercials. Tommy has already showed the dis meansedness a moviegoer may have towards commercials. Finally, suppliers can be content with commercials because customers can see their product and need to buy it during or after the movie.However, all this shows a large cost of trying to keep all of these stakeholders pleased. Keeping one stakeholder happy can make another unhappy. Benefits unrivaled benefit of showing twenty minute commercials is gaining revenue from commercials. When a customer sees a commercial with yummy chocolate bars or move popcorn they are going to be more enticed to go recreate and get some snacks before the movie starts. The Royal 16 Theater gains much revenue from moviegoers who gain this feeling during commercials. Another benefit from showing commercials is actually towa rds Royal 16 Theaters customers.By showing commercials, a moviegoer can show up late and not miss the movie. This is usually what customers will do if they do not care for the commercials or just decide on a last-minute movie trip. Now we can decide on the cost vs. benefit choice for the Royal 16 Theater. Cost-Benefit Analysis Conclusion After eyesight both costs and benefits Royal 16 Theater should deal with the cost entailed with relations with stakeholders and Tommy. We believe this due to the fact that the Royal 16 Theater has too much invested with their stakeholders to stop it all just for one lawsuit.By victorious the cost choice Royal 16 Theater will keep its reputation with customers and keep a relationship with the stakeholders. Having the benefits of customer satisfaction would be great however losing the stakeholders is too much of a risk for the theatre to take. We have discussed the cost-benefit analysis, now we can understand if moviegoers are being do by fairly. Customers Treated Fairly In this ethical issue it is pondered if the customers are sincerely yours being treated fairly. This is a yes or no issue.It can be argued that the customers are being treated unfairly because they are not seeing a true representation of an advertisement or time for a movie. However, it can be argued that moviegoers are being treated equally because the Royal 16 Theater does not have an actual contract stating that a movie will start at this time no matter what happens. Neither party has an agreement saying any compensation will be given if the contract does not follow through. Also, movies have always been similar to this routine of commercials and many customers understand that.However, based on ethics the moviegoers are not being treated fairly. It is mainly due to the fact that the Royal Theater states a time slot for a movie to start, not when commercials for the movie will start. It is just good business blueprint to keep moviegoers happy by not dece iving them. According to Michael Hackworth (1999), ethical lead actually saves money consider it the role of quality in business (Only the Ehical, para. 1). We have just discussed if the moviegoers are being treated fairly, now we will discuss the ethical theory which the Royal 16 Theater should act under.Ethical Theory The ethical theory Royal 16 Theater should act under is the stakeholder/utilitarian theory. We believe this theory is the best because it lends itself to the golden rule of the greatest good to the greatest number. We believe this is the best course of action for the Royal 16 Theater because the theater has to act out of its own interest to keep its stakeholders content with performance. Ethically, this decision makes the most sense because by going on with Tommys lawsuit it will make the problem go away quicker.By hole this issue with Tommy, the Royal Theater will make their stakeholders pleased and keep pursing revenue with their other fellow loyal customers.Conc lusionIn conclusion, we believe Mr. Plex should fight the case against Tommy with the consortium. We consider our evidence of the analysis of liability for fraud, statistical analysis, and ethical analysis enough to show Mr. Plex he will be successful in the case.Reference List Anderson, Sweeney, and Williams T. Chapter Nine- Hypothesis Tests, Statistics for Business and Economics. tenth ed. Thomas South-Western, 2009. Cao and Cao v.Nguyen and Pham, 258 Nev. 1027 607 N. W. 2d 528 2000 Neb. LEXIS56 Hackworth, M. (1999). Only the Ethical Survive. 10. Retrieved Jun 8, 2012 from http//www. scu. edu/ethics/publications/iie/v10n2/ethical-surv. html Mallor. (2009). Business law The ethical, global, and e-commerce environment. (14th ed. ). United States McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Schmidt, M. (2012). Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). Retrieved June 9, 2012 from http//www. solutionmatrix. com/cost-benefit-analysis. html Stakholder. (2012). Retrieved June 8, 2012 from http//www. investopedia. com/terms/s/s takeholder. aspaxzz1xLL3G6UG