Saturday, August 24, 2019

Continental Airlines, Inc and McDonnell Douglas Corporation Article

Continental Airlines, Inc and McDonnell Douglas Corporation - Article Example The case was submitted to the jury. On the basis of Continental’s theories of fraud, it was taken as evidence by the jury. Supreme Court ruling Hauter v. Zogarts (1975), it was held that the promises of safety were not statements of â€Å"opinion† or just â€Å"puffing† but representations of facts. Thus, the four representations of the brochure were not opinions but statements of facts. Further, the statements made by McDonnell Douglas were material. There is substantial evidence that Douglass statements regarding Landing Gear Breakaway were material and that Continental rightly trusted them in deciding to clinch the DC-10 deal. The court viewed the evidence in the light most well disposed to the judgment, taking all reasonable inferences and not taking conflicting evidence. There was evidence as quoted in section F that the landing gear was designed to break away from the wing without rupturing the wing fuel tank, which was material and rightfully trusted by Co ntinental. It is further proved by Douglass argument that Continental must prove that a clean landing gear breakaway was a condition of its decision to purchase the DC-10, rather than the L-1011, proving that Continental trusted the statements of McDonnell Douglas. California law is quite clear about whether it constitutes fraud making reckless false representations without any consideration to the truth. It states that â€Å"[s]ince direct proof of fraudulent intent is often impossible, the intent may be established by [in]ference [216 Cal.App.3d 412] from acts of the parties.' [Citation]† Another established law is that if evidence is applicable for any purpose it must be taken into consideration, even if it may not be proper for another purpose.   California law is quite clear

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.