In this case, Lewis can be considered the victim of the crime while the man who fraudulently purchased the car, as well as the man who resold it (Averay), can be seen as the perpetrators.
Based on this case, it can be argued against the statement that consumers need to take the statement Caveat Emptor more seriously and fulfill their obligations under a contract irrespective of mistake of law or mistake of fact.
Lewis, as the original owner of the car, had no prior knowledge of the fraudulent actions committed by the man claiming to be Richard Greene when he sold the car. Lewis was deceived by the fake studio pass presented as proof of identity, and unfortunately, he did not have the opportunity to discover the fraud before the car was resold.
Therefore, it can be argued that Lewis should not be held responsible for the actions of the subsequent buyer (Averay). Averay bought the car in good faith, without knowing of the fraud, and it would be unfair to expect him to bear the consequences of someone else's criminal behavior. Averay made a genuine and lawful purchase based on his belief that he was buying a legitimate vehicle.
In this case, Caveat Emptor, or "buyer beware," may not be applicable as Lewis had no reason to suspect any wrongdoing and the fraud was effectively concealed. It should be the responsibility of the person committing the fraud to bear the legal consequences, rather than burdening the innocent parties involved. Consumers should not be penalized for honest mistakes or the deceptive actions of others.
Therefore, based on this case example, consumers should not be held solely responsible for fulfilling their obligations under a contract without considering the circumstances of fraud and mistaken identity.
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.
so in his case who is the victim and who is comiting the crime
1 answer