Billy Joel Business Ethics and Law Case Study

he-goat Joel decided he wanted to learn to piddle the violin for his neighboring set of concerts. He cal take a violin cut-rate salesman in New York and asked if he had any for sale. The salesman utter he had a Stradivarius and a Guarnerius ( 2 famous brands of violins) and proposeed to sell them to baton for $80,000 and $24,000, respectively. he-goat hold, over the ph unmatchable, to purchase the violins from the salesman and told him he would be in town the next week to pick them up.Billy didnt show up for two months, and when he entered the store, the salesman wasnt there. His wife, Margaret, was there in the store, however, and she had all-inclusive knowledge of the wangle cut between her keep up and Billy. (Shed heard her husband whining, complaining, and wailing about Billy non showing up for the conk out 2 months and she was really sick of hearing about it.)Billy asked to overtake the violins, and Margaret showed him two of them. Billy stated he would agree to pay $65,000 for both of them, and Margaret, knowing that they were counterfeits and unaccompanied worth $2,000 AND realizing that their house was about to go into foreclosure, agreed to the reduction in price and sell Billy the two violins for $65,000. She gave him a bill of sale that she wrote out on a none explode on the counter, which said, Paid in full. Strativarus and Granruius violans. $65,000. Chk 4301 Billy Joel. Salesperson Margaret Madoff. The notepad was one she had brought fireside from their last vacation to Las Vegas and was from The Flamingo hotel there. Billy took home the violins and proceeded to learn to play, albeit very poor peoplely.Meanwhile, the salesman discovers that Margaret sold the violins for less than he had bargained for. He works Billy Joel for the $39,000 difference, stating that Margaret was not an employee of the store and had no authority to change the deal he and Billy had made.During the pendency of the suit, and after his next concert, the newspapers stated, Billy Joel should give up playing the violin He stinks Billy takes his violins to a music store to sell them and discovers they are only worth $2,000 and that they are not Stradivarius and Guarnerius violins but are instead counterfeits.He wants to countersue the salesman and asks you on what basis throw out he do so. Using thin out, agency, and any other(a) legal concepts you engender learned this session, on what bases can Billy sue the salesman and his wife? What defenses go forth they have? Do you think Billy can recover? Further, will Margarets husband (his name is Bernard) be able to absorb against Billy for the difference in price from the original deal? rationalize your answer fully as to the whys, wherefores, and why nots for both parties. Use green goddess points and issue spotting to assist you in your answer.Case SolutionIn the above exemplar scenario, the oral contr bear that was made between the vender and the vendee are not binding in the apostrophize of legality in accordance to the contract law. As in the case the trafficker has been be met with the loss of settling for less that the agreed verbal contract holds. The offer that was made by the seller and recognized by the buyer was a partial fulfilment of the contract. The absent of proof that in movement an agreement was made between the two parties will made the court to rule in favour of Billy. This should hence be the basis of line of products that Billy can use.The sell of counterfeit commodities to a buyer in high prices is considered to be a crime. The use of this basis by Billy holds a chance of guaranteeing him victory. This will also help in the reclaiming of his cast as a performer indicating that it was the counterfeit pianos that lead to the earlier poor performance. It is hence imperative to state that through these bases Bill will have a strong strain in the court against the railway line persons.defense team to be used by the Business PersonsIt is paramount to note that the Bernard and Margaret as the business persons do not hold a strong case against Billy due to the lack proof of the contract that was made in this business transaction. The fact that Margaret facilitated the completion of the verbal business coitions with the sale of the piano at a rate that was lower than the initially accepted prices can be used to state that she was not a business individual. The recommended $ 39,000 difference that Bernard is seeking from Billy Joel with regards to the agreed price would be establish on the fact that the individual who facilitated the initial processes of the contract was not an authority.The army of the Extra MoneyThe initial prices that had been verbally quoted by the salesman where $ 80,000 for Stradivarius piano and $ 24,000 for the Guarnerius piano. The score price that was paid for during the selling traction was only $65,000 which was less by $ 39,000. The fact that the two pianos where deemed to be counterfeit with the total worth of only $ 2,000, the chances of the business personnel having a refund will be unfruitful. It would not be in parliamentary law for the court to rule in favour of the Bernard to attain the free funds by virtue that they had sold a product to their customer that was functioning properly that ended up denting his stunt man as a performer.The original deal made between the two parties was based on lies and hence should not be cemented with the pay of the extra unpaid funds. A refund for the already paid funds in terms of $ 65,000 should be made to the customer. In the analysis of this case, it has been ascertained that the belongings of physical proof for the contracts has to be met in any business relations. This will help in the smooth transition of the business activities (Larson, 2010).ContractIn this case, the business contract was made between two parties with an oral offer and acceptance of the buyer. Based on the agreement, the two pianos were to be purchased at the stated price of $104,000. The reasonable period to enforce the purchase was the agreed one week where Billy was to collect the items. This can be used against him by the seller stating that they did not stick to the original oral business contract. The act of the seller misinterpreting the worth of the two pianos was not lawful since it is prohibited by the federal government. The presence of the third party in the business relation (wife) led to the reformation of the contract a new price generated. This led to the promise made to be broken by the buyer in the presence of the third party.AgencyThe ostensible authority that is held by the wife of the seller to give the buyer a new business deal with the information she held about the fake nature of the pianos would be termed in order in the court if the two jointly owned the business. The fact that she was not gives the seller an upper hand in stating that the purchase was made on unfair terms without hi s knowledge. This gives a somewhat strong basis for argument in the quest to attain the $ 39,000 difference in payment that was not made.