4 ms·
It seems like Amazon may have violated California law, and under CACI 1903 the buyers of items on the baby-registry list could have standing to sue Amazon for n
by floatingatoll 8y ago
It seems like Amazon may have violated California law, and under CACI 1903 the buyers of items on the baby-registry list could have standing to sue Amazon for negligent misrepresentation:
Fact: "the item was added to the list by the list's creator"
1. Amazon represented to the buyer that the Fact was true.
2. Amazon's representation was not true.
3. Amazon had no reasonable grounds for believing the Fact
was true.
4. Amazon intended the Buyer to rely on this representation.
5. The Buyer reasonably relied on this representation.
6. The Buyer was harmed.
7. The Buyer's reliance on Amazon's representation was a substantial factor in causing the harm.
The core of the issue to puzzle over: How was the buyer of the gift harmed?
https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1900/1903/ https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1900/1903...
- goodcanadian 8y agoThe core of the issue to puzzle over: How was the buyer of the gift harmed? One might be able to argue that the buyer was reputationally harmed by being tricked into buying a gift that was neither asked for nor wanted.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- marchenko 8y agoThe core of the issue to puzzle over: How was the buyer of the gift harmed? The buyer demonstrated intent to purchase an item desired by the list owner, but was deceived into purchasing an article that did not meet that criterion. The buyer expended resources on this purchase that could have gone toward an actually-desired item, delivered at a socially-appropriate time (ie in time for a baby shower).