Business Law, Term Paper Example

According to the case, the Lubbock Mercedes Cars Inc. (LMCI) cannot be able to recover the money they have lost from the State Farmer Insurance Inc. (State). An insurance fraud has evidently been committed in this case by Frank Slick. An insurance fraud occurs when someone knowingly lies so as to acquire benefits or any form of repayment, which they are otherwise not entitled (Cheeseman 35). The setback of the insurance fraud occurred when Frank got into a negotiation with LMCI to purchase the 2012 Mercedes E Class, but he took advantage of this opportunity to lie to the LMCI, thus, committing the fraud.

The case also involves a fugitive. This is someone who runs away from the law (Singer 67). Frank in this case can clearly be charged as being a fugitive in a court of law because after committing the crime, he fled his residence as a way of dodging from the law which would automatically find him guilty. The whole case unfolds two days before the check’s issue when Truly Slick, the mother of Frank called the state and indicated that issuing of the check to LMCI was no longer necessary. The State mailed the check to Frank Slick’s Oklahoma City address, and that is the point he fled from his place to hide from the LMCI who wanted to recover their money.

The breach of contract has also been committed by Frank to the LMCI. A breach of contract or agreement arises when a party to an agreement fails to perform in an exact and precise way the obligations that are required by the contract (Singer 19). The case had the contract agreement between Frank and the LMCI for the involved full payment of the Mercedes E Class. The breach of contract would however be imposed on Frank since he is the one who failed on his side of the bargain. Frank had entered into the automobile insurance policy with the State and thus the State was right in mailing him the check since their contract policy was official and in writing. In cases of such phenomenon taking place, it is only the two parties involved in the contract that will be liable to each other.

The LMCI will fail to recover the money from the State due to lack of circumstantial evidence. This is evidence that is required for use in connecting conclusion to the facts of the case (Smith 57). This is evidently seen in the agreement between LMCI and the State which was never put in writing and thus the State are on the right side when they argue that nothing was put to writing. In this case, the initial contract involved Frank and the State. Therefore, in cases of any repayments and the necessary compensations involved, it is only the two parties that could have been involved. The case of Frank and LMCI could then be counted as a totally different contract unless written agreements had been involved. Therefore, the LMCI cannot recover the money from State since they are the ones who made the mistake of not putting all the agreements in writing. The LMCI failed to put the agreement in writing on two occasions, first to the adjuster then to the State confirming of the assignment.

References

Cheeseman, H.R. The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2004.

Singer, J.W. Property law: rules, policies and practices. Ohio: Aspen Law & Business, 2002.

Smith, R.J. Property Law. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008.