Continental Airlines, Inc and McDonnell Douglas Corporation Article

Continental Airlines, Inc and McDonnell Douglas Corporation - Article usageThe case was submitted to the jury. On the basis of Continentals theories of fraud, it was taken as render by the jury. ultimate Court ruling Hauter v. Zogarts (1975), it was held that the promises of safety were not statements of opinion or just puffing but representations of facts. Thus, the quatern representations of the brochure were not opinions but statements of facts. Further, the statements made by McDonnell Douglas were material. There is substantial evidence that Douglass statements regarding Landing wagon train Breakaway were material and that Continental rightly trusted them in deciding to clinch the DC-10 deal. The court viewed the evidence in the light most well disposed to the judgment, taking all reasonable inferences and not taking conflicting evidence. There was evidence as quoted in section F that the landing accommodate was designed to break away from the wing without rupturing the w ing fuel tank, which was material and rightfully trusted by Continental. It is further proved by Douglass argument that Continental must prove that a clean landing gear breakaway was a condition of its decision to purchase the DC-10, rather than the L-1011, proving that Continental trusted the statements of McDonnell Douglas. California constabulary is quite clear about whether it constitutes fraud making reckless false representations without any consideration to the truth. It states that since contribute proof of fraudulent intent is often impossible, the intent may be established by inference 216 Cal.App.3d 412 from acts of the parties. Citation some other established law is that if evidence is applicable for any purpose it must be taken into consideration, flat if it may not be proper for another purpose.California law is quite clear