Chat with AI
Business Law 9th Edition by Henry Cheeseman
Edition 9ISBN: 978-0134004778Business Law 9th Edition by Henry Cheeseman
Edition 9ISBN: 978-0134004778 Exercise 1
FEDERAL COURT CASE Fraud in the Inducement
Portugués-Santana v. Rekomdiv International, Inc.
725 F.3d 17, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 15331 (2013)
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
"In the end, Portugués got zilch for his money."
-Thompson, Circuit Judge
Facts
Victor Omar Portugués-Santana wanted to open a Victoria's Secret franchise in Puerto Rico. Richard Domingo, a business broker, told Santana that obtaining a Victoria's Secret franchise was a "done deal" if he hired Domingo's firm, Rekomdiv International, Inc., and hired former United States Senator Birch Bayh's law firm, Venable, LLP, to assist him. Portugués relied on Domingo's representations and entered into retainer agreements with Rekomdiv and Venable. Portugués paid $225,000 to Rekomdiv and $400,000 to Venable. Several months after entering into these agreements and paying the retainers, someone from Venable e-mailed Portugués, telling him that a Victoria's Secret franchise was not available because Victoria's Secret did not use a franchise system but owned and operated its own stores. Portugués sued Domingo and Rekomdiv and Bayh and Venable for breach of contract and dolo -Spanish for "fraud." Venable and Bayh settled with Portugués for an undisclosed amount. Portugués's lawsuit against Domingo and Rekomdiv proceeded to trial in U.S. district court in Puerto Rico, where the jury held in favor of Portugués and awarded him $625,000 in damages. The decision was appealed.
Issue
Are Domingo and Rekomdiv liable to Portugués for dolo?
Language of the Court
In the end, Portugués got zilch for his money.
On the verdict form the jury answered yes to the following question: "Do you find that any of the defendants incurred in dolo?" and listed each defendant's name with a space to the left of each name where the jury could mark an "X". The jury placed an "X" next to "Richard Domingo" and "Rekomdiv Int'l, Inc." When asked on the verdict form, "What damages, if any, did plaintiff sustain as the consequence of defendant's/defendants' dolo," the jury responded the damages amounted to $625,000.
Decision
The U.S. court of appeals affirmed the U.S. district court's finding of fraud and the award of $625,000 in favor of the plaintiff.
Ethics Questions
What is dolo? Did Domingo act ethically in this case? Why do defendants settle the lawsuits?
Portugués-Santana v. Rekomdiv International, Inc.
725 F.3d 17, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 15331 (2013)
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
"In the end, Portugués got zilch for his money."
-Thompson, Circuit Judge
Facts
Victor Omar Portugués-Santana wanted to open a Victoria's Secret franchise in Puerto Rico. Richard Domingo, a business broker, told Santana that obtaining a Victoria's Secret franchise was a "done deal" if he hired Domingo's firm, Rekomdiv International, Inc., and hired former United States Senator Birch Bayh's law firm, Venable, LLP, to assist him. Portugués relied on Domingo's representations and entered into retainer agreements with Rekomdiv and Venable. Portugués paid $225,000 to Rekomdiv and $400,000 to Venable. Several months after entering into these agreements and paying the retainers, someone from Venable e-mailed Portugués, telling him that a Victoria's Secret franchise was not available because Victoria's Secret did not use a franchise system but owned and operated its own stores. Portugués sued Domingo and Rekomdiv and Bayh and Venable for breach of contract and dolo -Spanish for "fraud." Venable and Bayh settled with Portugués for an undisclosed amount. Portugués's lawsuit against Domingo and Rekomdiv proceeded to trial in U.S. district court in Puerto Rico, where the jury held in favor of Portugués and awarded him $625,000 in damages. The decision was appealed.
Issue
Are Domingo and Rekomdiv liable to Portugués for dolo?
Language of the Court
In the end, Portugués got zilch for his money.
On the verdict form the jury answered yes to the following question: "Do you find that any of the defendants incurred in dolo?" and listed each defendant's name with a space to the left of each name where the jury could mark an "X". The jury placed an "X" next to "Richard Domingo" and "Rekomdiv Int'l, Inc." When asked on the verdict form, "What damages, if any, did plaintiff sustain as the consequence of defendant's/defendants' dolo," the jury responded the damages amounted to $625,000.
Decision
The U.S. court of appeals affirmed the U.S. district court's finding of fraud and the award of $625,000 in favor of the plaintiff.
Ethics Questions
What is dolo? Did Domingo act ethically in this case? Why do defendants settle the lawsuits?
Explanation
Verified
Verified
Case summary:
Person S wanted to open f...
Business Law 9th Edition by Henry Cheeseman
Why don’t you like this exercise?
Other Minimum 8 character and maximum 255 character
Character 255
