YIM V. J`S FASHION ACCESSORIES

Running head: 1

YIMV. J`S FASHION ACCESSORIES

June27, 2014.

Yimv. J`s Fashion Accessories

Inthis case, the J’s fashion company would have exploited the courtsargument that indeed it is Mr. Yim who was personally responsible forpaying the resources. It is clear from the precedent that, Mr. Yimhad acted in his own capacity and deceit in swindling J’s fashion.As an agent of Housing Enterprise, he needed to be sued for engagingin fraud activities. The business law stipulates that Mr. Yim falsefully lied by not identifying himself clearly. In a broader sense,the act by Mr. Yim was intentional and constituted a criminal act. Assuch, J’s, still had more legal arguments to make to compel Mr. Yimto pay for the resources as a person (Edwards,Meiners &amp Ringleb, 2012).

Thename signed in the purchase order would be enough proof that indeedMr. Yim was responsible for the fraud. For instance, if his acts werenot intentional he would have requested earlier to rectify the namesigned in the purchase order or return the goods altogether. In thiscase, by appending his name on the contract purchase document, he wasliable stating that he was the rightful receiver of the goodsotherwise he would have indicated that he was an agent to Ho Tae.Therefore, in all ways, even if the Hosung Enterprise stated that itwould not payback the resources, Mr. Yim would have been compelled topay (Edwards et al. 2012). In addition, Mr. Yim needed to be finedfor lying to the court and J’s Fashion business. Based on the proofprovided by Mr. Yim that he was a registered agent with HosungEnterprises, J’s fashions would still have pressed HosungEnterprise to pay for the purchased goods (Edwardset al. 2012). In all ways, the case was still open for more legalsuits associated to fraud attempts and negligence to abide bycontract terms.

References

EdwardsFrancesL., Roger L. Meiners &amp Al H. Ringleb. 2012. The legal Environmentof Business 11thEdition. CengageLearning Publishers.