Reference no: EM13777239

Brief a Case

Case Title; Consumers Vs the Beard town Ladies Common sense Investment Guide Publishers

Facts of the Case: The case involves a client who takes legal action on behalf of other consumers who purchased a book and the book publisher. The complainant is a customer who feels that the book called "The Beards town ladies' Common sense Investment Guide" publishers violates the state's statute against deceptive advertisements. On the other hand, the defendant is the book publisher.
Proceedings below: It is clear that in this case, the publisher has used misleading information in the book. Customer deception is equivalent to fraud and is categorized under the laws governing fraudulent dealings. However, the lower courts may treat the incident as a motivational marketing tool by the publisher, which is not in the actual sense.

The Question before the Court: The court will have to ascertain whether the publisher included or depicted an expression or phrases in the book to show that the figures used in the manuscript were only meant to motivate and inspire the clients. The law requires that consumers are provided with actual information concerning various products and services. Therefore, providing customers with false information in order to make sales is unlawful

Holding: In a California court, the court held that producers of commodities who offer forged details to clients act in the same manner as burglars. Although, the majority may argue that exaggerated facts in a book's content may not do much harm to clients, the basic legal question in this scenario is the impact of the false details to the recipients.
Reasoning: A law protecting the consumers of products requires that they are supplied with accurate and detailed information concerning the commodities in question. Thus, exempting the publisher from this rule will mean that the court violates the rules of the land. Additionally, publishing a book with false content does not only harm the clients but also violates the laws governing the set standards of quality.

Concurrence: The publisher pleads guilty of issuing the client's with false information. On the contrary, the publisher can defend himself by arguing that the consumers are not patient enough to exercise the procedures contained in the book. Further, he can maintain that he has employed the steps contained in the book and achieved the results that he published.

Dissent: The Judges disagreed with the majority's reasoning on the publisher's innocence since he did not indicate that the figures he published in the book were imaginary. Consequently, his actions amounted to deceit (Ruder, 2002).