July at the Multiplex

The question

There are couple of questions that must be addressed. These include the way the consortium should survey its patrons and how would it use the results? Tommy learned from the newspaper that the movie “The Governator” was supposed to start at 1pm. This is also what his ticket said and what the cashier informed him about. However, in reality the movie only began at 1.20 pm. In such cases, does Tommy have a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation against the theatre? Since Tommy gave cash for the ticket, there was a contract. And if Tommy has a cause of action what does this mean for Mr. Plex and the consortium? Is Tommy entitled for a refund when he watched twenty minutes of the movie, when he also had to watch a number of commercials and was dissatisfied with the movie?

The legal analysis of the questions

Considering that the ticket, the newspaper and the cashier all stated that the movie starts at 1 pm, can Tommy, the theater goer, rescind his legal obligations under the contract that was created between him and the theater because the movie did not start until 1.20? The issue focuses on fraudulent misrepresentation. In order to succeed in such claim, Tommy must prove six elements. These six elements are set out in Cao v. Pham: (1) the plaintiff must show that the representation about the fact was made, (2) that such misrepresentation was in fact false, (3) that the defendant knew that the statement was false at the time it was made or at least was reckless about his knowledge regarding the truth, (4) that the defendant made the representation with the intention that the plaintiff will rely on it, (5) that the plaintiff, as a reasonable person did in fact rely on the representation, and (6) that the plaintiff suffered damages from the misrepresentation.

            In Cao v. Nguyen, the plaintiff brought property from the defendant. The plaintiff did inform the defendant that they were planning to use the property as rental property. When...