JULY AT THE MULTIPLEX CASE STUDY
The litigation involved in solving contractual disputes is dynamic and thus requires the litigant to ascertain certain facts around the alleged inducement into committing on a false belief. It is important that every party in a legal engagement act upon self-satisfaction and shear approval of the subject in question. However, there are weaknesses that certain people exhibit. The lure of missing on an opportunity can be the motivation behind poor examination of contractual facts.
In the case study, Tommy is entangled in a dispute over the deceitful lure of a hit movie that has been in the anticipation of every moviegoer. Contrary to his anticipation, the information provided on the ticket does not conform to the events that follow the purchase of the ticket. However, several contestable facts underlie the decision around the events. In an event that the Tommy had a contract with the Theatre and following the sequence of events, Royal Theatre would be liable for breach of contract. In this assumption, Tommy purchases the movie ticket on a contract that stipulates that the movie time starts at 1.00 pm then advertisements consume the first twenty minutes. In this view, the Royal Theatre is culpable for fraud in the factum. It is clear the ticket information and the actual events did not tally. Consequently, the facts of the contracts are deliberately misrepresented. The defendant is liable for deliberate misrepresentation of the actual contract. The plaintiff is thus pressing charges against Royal Theatre seeking a refund of the ticket money plus emotional and psychological torture. Viewing contents without your full awareness is torturous to the emotions. Thus, the defendant should be made to compensate the plaintiff.
In light of this result, what course of action should the consortium adopt?
Tommy will be expected to meet the more than ten percent required to make a lawsuit. However, only 6% agrees with his view, therefore; he lacks the legal threshold to file a lawsuit. According to the statistics, Tommy does not reach the 10% or more necessary for the settlement of a lawsuit. Therefore, the settlement should not be considered by the consortium. 6% of the patrons surveyed are giving the consortium no course for alarm since it is way less than 10% resentment by other moviegoers. The consortium should thus not contemplate settling of the probable lawsuit.
When would the consortium make a Type I error? A Type II error?
The consortium would make type I error if they had rejected a correct hypothesis. If the consortium rejected the null hypothesis when more than 10% was true and decided to make a settlement, it would be making Type I error.
Type II error would occur if the consortium decided to take the defense of the lawsuit while less than 10% of the patrons agreed with Tommy. In this case, the consortium had accepted the null hypothesis while it is false.
Even if 300 patrons were surveyed, the answer would not change. 18 people being in conformity with Tommy still brings the figure to 6% thus equally lacking the threshold as required to settle a possible lawsuit. Being that only 6% showed their resentment with the commercials, Tommy does not have the legal threshold thus the consortium should not weight any option for settlement of the probable suit. It is important for Tommy to have more than ten or more than 10% of the moviegoers to share his view and resentment. But it is clear from the statistics that he lacks the threshold.
Ethical issues involved in the case
Tommy deciding to file a lawsuit despite the statistics results not favoring him- Ethical decision making requires that parties stick to the terms of engagement. In the case, Tommy has accepted to take hid of the consortium point of decision of only reaching settlement if more than ten percent of patrons did not like the commercials.
