Question

Larson entered Forrester's Auto Mart to purchase a used car. Larson found a vehicle with a sales price of $11,000. After Forrester answered all of Larson's questions, Forrester and Larson agreed to a sale. As Larson was leaving to get the money to pay for the car, Forrester told Larson that he thought Robert Redford formerly owned the car. Larson later learned that Robert Redford had never owned the car. If Larson seeks to rescind the deal based on Forrester’s statement, Larson wil:
a. win because he relied on the misrepresentation.b. win because there was a misrepresentation of a material fact.c. lose because he will not be able to prove reliance on the misrepresentation.d. lose because Forrester made a unilateral mistake.

Answer 1

Answer:

The answer is: C) lose because he will not be able to prove reliance on the misrepresentation.

Explanation:

In order for Larson to be able to rescind the contract, he would have to prove that he had reasonable reliance that Robert Redford owned that specific car. Reasonable reliance refers to a person believing something to be a fact, which any other person could reasonably believe in as well.

But exactly how could he prove that someone else might also believe that the car was previously owned by Robert Redford? I find it very doubtful that he can prove that.