The Next Monet, Inc., operated art schools. At one of its classes, John Picasso (no relation to the great artist) was praised by
an instructor for his potential as "the next Monet." The instructor then sold John twenty half-hour art lessons for $20.00 each. Over the next three years, the instructor continued to praise John’s artistic potential, and John bought 4,000 hours of art lessons during that period. When John realized that he still couldn’t paint a bowl of fruit, he sued The Next Monet alleging fraudulent misrepresentation. Based on the decision in Vokes v. Arthur MurrayLinks to an external site., Inc., the court in this case would most likely rule in favor of:__________. a. The Next Monet, because the instructor did not guarantee success.
b. John, because the instructor had superior knowledge of as to whether John had artistic potential.
c. None of the above.
d. The Next Monet, because the instructor’s opinion cannot be challenged by a court that knows little about art.
In simple words, The given case is related to the conclusion made by the court in the famous case of Vokes versus Arthur MurrayLinks, in which the jury in the court rules that, a determination of a party carrying better information about a subject matter may be treated as a matter of fact even though it would be treated as an opinion if the parties were speaking for deal on equal conditions.
Exculpatory clause in contracts is a clause that protects the person issuing it from liabilities of damages to an asset that may not be in their possession or out of their control. It prevents one party from the holding the other liable for damages to an asset during the execution of a contract. This is what Jack has done to protect himself from the liabilities that may result from any damages during the contract.
