Keri went to Crandon's computer outlet with her brother Paul, who was buying a laser printer. While she was waiting for him, she saw a poster saying that the store was collecting funds for a special computer for a student recently disabled in an accident. The seller induced Paul to buy the model "X" printer by stating as a fact that the printer could interface with his Macintosh clone. Paul paid $900 for the printer. Also, Keri gave $15 to the student fund after the seller confirmed he was collecting for the student's computer. Later, Paul and Keri learned that neither statement was true (i.e., the printer didn't interface with Paul's computer and the store was doing nothing for the student), and that the seller didn't believe that the statements were true when he made them. On these facts, which of the following is true?
▸ Only Keri has a remedy because she had been fraudulently misrepresented.
▸ Paul could sue for rescission because of the misrepresentation.
▸ Keri could sue for damages due to a misunderstanding.
▸ Paul could sue for damages due to an innocent misrepresentation.
▸ The court would rescind Paul's contract only with proof that the seller knew his statement was false.
Quick Reply
