Lucia Car Dealership Case Study.

Lucia Imports

Lucia Imports is an automobile dealership owned by Lucia. On the condition that he pay a commission on products sold. The products in this example are a vehicle. Jordan is the name of this agent. Jordan refers a customer to Lucia Imports, and if the buyer purchases a car, Jordan receives a commission. Jordan provided an example of a customer named Kali who purchases a car valued $20,000. Jordan is paid $500 for the sale after the purchase, which is approximately 2.5% of the total purchase price. The relationship between Jordan and Lucia, on the other hand, is not mentioned to the customer in this scenario. On the assumption to be friends.

The Down Payment

It comes to the attention of Lucia that one of the clients named Durrantt had paid a down payment of $5,000 to Jordan whom he thought was a partner of the business of a car he wanted to buy. On a serious case Jordan after cashing out the check, he disappeared with the money. Durrantt asks Lucia to honor the down payment and to sell the car, but Lucia refuses to acknowledge the amount paid since Jordan was neither an agent or an employee. Lucia also complains because the down payment also paid it did not match the worth of the car which cost $25,000.

Principal-Agent or Employer-Employee Relationship

Based that this relationship between the two Lucia and Jordan is neither a principal-agent relationship or employer-employee relationship which are legally binding under the laws of agency and all. Jordan at some point acts as an agent of this dealership, but we cannot conclude it all since there is no a legal agreement between the two. In such that Jordan serves the interests of the Lucia imports by getting customers to purchase the goods in this case cars and get paid a commission. Since it is not such type of a relationship. Lucia and Jordan share a relationship with the Broker-dealer relationship.

Broker-Dealer Relationship

A broker-dealer relationship is not legally binding to some extent such as auto transport and automobile industries. Neither do they have a formal licensing or training requirement?. At this instance, a broker is a person who undertakes transaction between the buyer and seller. A dealer especially a car dealer is a person who operates a firm on behalf of the more significant organization. It is most dominant in the automobile industry. The broker is compensated for his efforts through success fee. It is a commission paid upon closing of a deal. It is a case that applies to Jordan when he is paid a charge of $500 for a contract of sale of a car worth $20,000 to kali. In this instance, regarding the law, all the fees paid by the third party must be disclosed to all parties. Apparently, the relationship is not binding neither Jordan had a license or Lucia did not mind about it. Jordan acts an intermediary between a customer and the dealership.

A Case between Shinberg and Bruk

An example of a case between Shinberg and Bruk in Massachusetts. The defendant had an oral agreement that he would pay Shinberg a finder fee of 10% in the purchase price of a real estate that Shinberg found in Hampshire suitable for a shopping mall. When Bruk found the piece of land from Shinberg introduced the seller to Bruk, who was known as Smith. Upon the purchase of land at $2,615,000. Shinberg is entitled to a finder’s fee of $250,000. However, this fee was not paid, and later Shinberg sued Bruk for a dishonor of the oral agreement though in the court of law was not legally binding due to various instances and laws of broker-dealer.

Non-binding Relationship

This type of a relationship is not legally binding at all. Lucia did not take any measures to check the background of Jordan since he acted in the interests of an agent to the company. Since Jordan worked as a broker or an intermediary should be a register especially as an auto broker with the firm to ensure credibility and accountability. It shows that this relationship was on a temporal basis. Also, the customers did not bother to get details of the broker Jordan. Since they believed was a friend to Lucia and acted in her interest only to notice that Lucia says he is neither an agent nor an employee. Thus, the contractual law and the agency law cannot operate in this case study. Since it was a casual-based broker-dealer relation.

Durrant’s Down Payment

Lucia is not required to honor Durrant’s down payment. The down payment of $5,000 paid to Jordan as a down payment of car Lucia, was to sell was not contractual. It is because for a dealer or a broker to act in the interest of the company in this instance Lucia’s imports. All the payments done by a third party should be disclosed to all parties. It did not apply in this case. Lucia was not acknowledged on the deal between Jordan and Durrantt. It is because also Jordan was not an agent or an employee of the car dealership. Therefore, at this point, the fee paid was not directly to the dealer but Jordan. Whom Durrant thought was the principal of the sale.

Background Check

Durrant was supposed to make a background check to ensure the relationship between Lucia and Jordan was binding legally. It was casual and not aligned with the laws of the state. Therefore, Lucia is not obligated at any instance to pay off or honor the down payment made to Jordan instead of her. The check was payable to Jordan and not Lucia imports. “Jordan for Lucia Imports” as it states in the case study. In which it could be addressed to Lucia imports directly. Thus, the casual broker acted fraudulently purporting to be a dealer for sale.

SEC Charges Crawford

An example of a case law. Where the SEC charges Crawford for fraud activity. For receiving money from a private entity and disappearing with it. From the court summary SEC sued the defendant for acting as u registered broker and violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C 78o(a). The judge requested for injunctive relief. The facts of this case are acting as a purported broker and led to misuse of investors’ money.

Verification

From this scenario, Durrantt should have verified the if Jordan was Lucia’s agent or an employee. Due to lack of consent, he faced financial fraud from Jordan and not Lucia. Therefore, Lucia is not required to pay or honor the down payment at all cost since in the inventories Lucia’s Import did not receive any money. However, the money paid was written back to Jordan of Lucia imports and not to Lucia’s imports.

In Conclusion

In conclusion, there is no case to answer in this scenario of a case. It is neither legally binding nor has any background legal base for it to be sued against in the state-federal court. Durrantt, however, is supposed to legally sue Jordan for the impersonation and identity fraud as a criminal case. Durantt can make an effort of suing Jordan for using Lucia’s dealership name to commit fraud which is enforceable by law.