Tommys second cause of action is his argument that there was fraudulent

misrepresentation; in that he was informed the movie would begin at 1pm, when in fact the
movie itself did not start until 1:20pm because of commercials. In reference to Lee P. Cao and
Louann P. Cao, v. Huan Nguyen and Nega Pham, there are six key elements of fraudulent
misrepresentation that Tommy as the plaintiff must prove in order to maintain an action.
These six key elements are as follows:
That a representation of fact was made:
Insert Definition. The Multiplex did in fact make a representation of fact by advertising
in the newspaper that the movie was scheduled to begin at 1pm, the cashier telling Tommy that
the movie would begin at 1pm, by posting 1pm on the marquee, and by stating that the movie
starts at 1pm on the movie ticket. In Cao v. Nguyen we see that there was a representation of
fact made by the sellers when they told the buyers, that the home could be rented to two
families. The buyers, Lee P. Cao and Louann P. Cao, relied on this very important
representation of fact in forming their contract. In the same way, Tommy relied on the
representation of fact made by the Multiplex that the, Governator would begin at 1pm in
forming a contract. Thus proving that a representation of fact was made.
That the representation was false:
Objectively, the representation made by the Multiplex was in fact false. Tommy is clear
in stating that, twenty minutes of commercials were shown before the movie began.
Although the representation of fact was literally false, we must consider the fact that any
reasonable person would have known that there are commercials shown before a movie.
Thereby, any reasonable person would not consider this to be a false representation. Should we
insert statistical findings?
That when made, the representation was known to be false or made recklessly without
knowledge of its truth:
When the Multiplex advertised the start time of the movie in the newspaper, on the
marquee, through the cashier, and on the ticket they knowingly misrepresented the starting time
of the movie, because they were aware of the of commercials being shown preceding the movie.
That it was made with the intention that the plaintiff should rely upon it:
The Multiplex absolutely knew that the plaintiff would rely on their representation of
fact. They knew that if Tommy wanted to get a good seat, he would have to show up by 1pm.
Their intention in advertising that the movie would begin at 1pm, was to obtain an audience for
their commercials, which is one of the more significant ways they make their revenue.
That the plaintiff reasonably did so rely:
Tommy did so rely on the 1pm advertisement. He showed up to the movie theatre at
12:45pm to purchase his ticket. After purchasing the ticket, Tommy entered his specific theatre
and sat down at 12:58pm. After sitting down, Tommy was surprised to find the showing of
commercials at 1pm. In fact Tommy stated, All that hurrying, all that worrying, all that anxiety
to find his seat before the movie would begin. All that, just to see commercials!
That the plaintiff suffered damage as a result:
Although Tommy could claim that he suffered the loss of nine of his hard earned
dollars, in damages as well as twenty to fifty minutes of his valuable time, Tommy reaped the
benefit of this contract in that he was able to sit in an air conditioned room, which was one of his
main reasons for choosing to go to a movie theatre in the first place. Tommy also reaffirmed the
contract by sitting through the commercials and watching thirty minutes of the movie. When
looking to see if in fact a contract was made one must understand the different types of contracts
and how they are then formed. In all types of contracts there is an offeror and an offeree. In the
July At The Multiplex case the offeror would be the royal 16 theater and Tommy would be the
offeree. When looking at the different types of contracts that can be formed the one in this case
would be