InJames’ case there is a liability for deceptive pricing. In rule oflaw consumers are protected by the law against any form of deceptivepricing or advertisement. It is the role of the entrepreneurs to putcredible price tags on their products. This is because the consumersor customers will solely rely on the price tag attached to theproduct. Under both the state and federal law, every pricing thattends to mislead or deceive is unlawful. If that price or advertisingis found to be deceptive, the seller is liable of facing legalproblems irrespective of whether the advertisement was intentional ornot. In James’ case he had a firm base of suing the seller andreceives full compensation in accordance to the rule of law (Freeman,2013).
Infollowing this advice there will be an effect in their negotiationswith the seller to harmonize the cost of the Mooncraft II. Thenegotiations are unlawful and according to the federal laws this isunacceptable unless the initial cost was the real cost. In that case,reduction in price would be considered as a discount. Following theadvice given in part one, will affect this negotiations in the sensethat James will follow the rule of law and hence demand forcompensation and the seller would also be forced to sell the game tohim with the recorded price in the price tag. However, if James feelsit is worth paying the harmonized price, it is acceptable since it islogical to understand that human is to error.
Inthis case, where James was ordering the Mooncraft II via internet ona promotional cost, James seems to have a legal base for requestingseeking legal interventions. James filled the form and also signed acheque before promotional time had elapsed. This clearly shows thatthe problem was more of the attendant that James’. James wouldhence sue the attendant as who is likely to face legal problems.James has evidence in that the date of filling the form as well thedate for sending the cheque receipt are recorded and hence the ruleof law would be on his favor and the attendant would be forced toconsider his case to his favor (Freeman, 2013).
Ifthe website would accept direct debit it would be advisable for Jamesto accept it on the condition that he will be charged the indicatedpromotional price. However, if the website would remain silent tothis case, the only option was to sue the website. This is becausethe website would seem to be ignoring James.
Jamesin this case blackmailed Mrs. Christie. It is not only against therule of law but also the human nature to take advantage over someonebased on his or her physical disability. James violated Mrs.Christie’s rights and he is liable to face the rule of law. This isalso classified as a form of stealing since he forced her to sign adocument that she was not aware of its impacts having deceived her.Mrs. Christie would sue James on the account of taking advantage ofher and stole her jewellery. Legal actions against James would betaken where he will be forced to retrieve the jewellery fromChristina and then hand them back Mrs. Christie. This is the only wayin which Mrs. Christie will be able to get her jewelry back (Freeman,2013).
Alexander’scase is quite tricky. This is because there was no written documentthat would act as evidence in a law court. However, an agreementstands to be respected irrespective of whether it was oral or inwritten form. This indicates that Alfred has no right to threatenAlexander simply because they fell out. It would be necessary foralexander to make Alfred aware that he will stick to the agreementand incase of persistent threats he would seek legal intervention.This is because the agreement stands to be respected irrespective ofwhether it is either oral or in written documents and in this caseAlfred is violating the agreement’s rules. This, however, should bedone in a friendly way since there is no any evidence that Alexandercan use to defend himself in case they appear in a law court(Freeman, 2013).
Incase, the agreement was in written form the advice would be similarto the first. This is because in either way Alfred lacks legal rightsto threaten alexander since they had entered in an agreement. Heshould therefore stick to that agreement to the latter.
Incase there existed an exclusion of an intention of creating legalrelations in written documents representing the agreement, the advicewould be different. This is because any form of acting against theagreement would put Alfred in a position of being liable face therule of law. In this case, alexander would have directly sued Alfredfor breaching their agreement.
Freeman,M. (2013). Lawand language.Oxford: Oxford University Press.