Common Law Assignment. Madonna Success on the Claim

Madonna Success on the Claim
Common law demands business entities not to make statements that are likely to create a false impression or are incorrect. Any information provided to a consumer about a product should be true and relevant to the said product or service. In any representation of goods or services, businesses must not promote, advertise, or quote statements that are likely to trigger undue influence from consumers. This law, however, exempts vague claims that cannot be true naturally. In this case, Vincent advertised falsely, thereby convincing Madonna that she could lease the shop. Vincent’s behavior gave Madonna a misleading impression that the shop was affordable. The consumer ended up making an uninformed decision.[Delaney, David. "Legal Geography III: New Worlds, New Convergences." Progress in Human Geography 41, no. 5 (10, 2017): 669]
There is a proof requirement that Madonna must meet to sue for false advertising. Primarily, Madonna will need to prove that a false statement has been made about Vincent’s shop. Since Vincent included “electricity included” in the statement, he is susceptible to false advertising. Madonna will also need to prove that the statement deceives or has the potential to deceive the targeted audience. With electricity bills accommodated, more interested consumers would want to lease the shop as opposed to if the information is not included. Thirdly, Madonna must prove that the deception in the statement is likely to influence her decision to execute the transaction. Ultimately, Madonna must prove that she has incurred an injury or is potentially facing an injury due to the false information. The injury could be losses that she has incurred while still unable to reach an agreement with Vincent. Bearing the nature of the proof requirements above, Madonna can pursue litigation in the case.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is mandated to regulate advertising with truth-in-advertising laws. This allows for private litigation through other statutes such as the Lanham Act. Normally, the goal of such litigation is to prevent rather than to punish. The normal procedure is to order the defendant (Vincent) to stop the behavior of false advertising. Supreme Court cases such as ONY, Inc. v. Cornerstone Therapeutics, Inc. No. 12-2414 (2d Cir. 2013) and POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. 679 F.3d 1170 (2012) have been employed to set a precedent in similar cases. While corrective advertising is mandated, there should be no prison or fines to the defendant. A continuation of similar behaviors by the defendant after the warning should attract punishment.[Progress in Human Geography 41, no. 5 (10, 2017): 668]
The Validity of Madonna’s Acceptance
Madonna’s claim of the validity of her acceptance can be grounded on the contract law. In the meeting on June 1, they had an oral communication that implied elements of the business. However, Madonna did not indicate any intention of leasing the shop at that meeting. Vincent did not get the impression that Madonna had agreed to his new terms. Based on this verbal contract, Madonna barely has a legal ground to prove breach of contract beyond any reasonable doubt. In a verbal contract, a lack of tangible evide...