Question

"In Newspaper, there was an add for Forever 21 saying ""Huge selection of rompers. Regularly $35, today only $15"" Cassie arrives at Forever 21 at 3:00 but the sales clerk says they're all out of those rompers. The sales clerk shows Cassie the newly arrived rompers that sells for $40. Cassie sues claiming breach on contract and violation of a consumer protection statute.

Who will prevail, Forever 21 or Cassie?"
(A) Cassie sues Forever 21 for breach of contract and violation of a consumer protection statute.
(B) Forever 21 advertises a sale on rompers, but they are out of stock when Cassie arrives.
(C) Cassie is disappointed that she cannot buy the rompers she wants, but she does not sue Forever 21.
(D) The sales clerk at Forever 21 is helpful and shows Cassie other rompers that are available.

Answer 1

Cassie will likely prevail in her lawsuit against Forever 21 for breach of contract and violation of a consumer protection statute. Forever 21 advertised a sale on rompers but did not have them in stock when Cassie arrived. This constitutes a breach of contract, and Cassie may also have a valid claim for violation of a consumer protection statute.

Step-by-step explanation:

In this case, the most likely result is that Cassie will prevail in her lawsuit against Forever 21 for breach of contract and violation of a consumer protection statute. Forever 21 advertised a sale on rompers but did not have them in stock when Cassie arrived. This constitutes a breach of contract because Forever 21 made an offer to sell the rompers at a discounted price, and Cassie accepted that offer by showing up at the store. The offer and acceptance form a binding contract, and Forever 21 failed to fulfill their end of the agreement by not having the rompers in stock.

In addition to the breach of contract claim, Cassie may also have a valid claim for violation of a consumer protection statute. The specific statute would depend on the jurisdiction, but many consumer protection statutes prohibit false advertising or deceptive business practices. Forever 21's advertisement for the rompers at a discounted price could be considered false or deceptive if they did not have an adequate supply of rompers available for sale. Cassie could argue that she was lured into the store by the advertisement and suffered harm as a result of the false advertising.

Ultimately, it will be up to a court to determine the outcome of the case. However, based on the facts provided, Cassie has strong legal arguments to support her claims against Forever 21. It's important to note that this is a hypothetical scenario, and the actual outcome could vary depending on the specific laws and circumstances involved.