GGS case study
1. Having heard from knowledgeable people that the exhibited works could be fake, should Nick Credulo, President of Amigos de los Predidos, advise the Amigos’ donors, and other people he has written, of what he has heard? Suppose some of them have already reserved and given a downpayment or have already paid and brought the works home. Should he tell them and advise them to return and get a refund? Suppose Jennifer says sales are final. What should Nick do?
On my opinion, Nick should investigate first if there was connivance between Danielle, (the University Professor), Nelson (Jennifer’s friend) and Miguel (who was the supplier of the paintings). If later on found out that there is no collusion happened, Jennifer should be liable for the fake works that she already sold. But if he finds out that there was connivance between the three, he may talk to Jennifer and tell her to sue the three for fraud.
4. With the information relayed to her by her friend Nelson Sabiendas, Jennifer Amable has grounds to believe that the works she exhibited and sold are fakes. Should she tell Nick and Amigos Trustees and the people who bought or reserved works in the show? How should the deal with Danielle Malcriada and Miguel Diestro – should she assume they are crooks in league to fool her or give them the benefit of the doubt? Assuming the buyers want a refund of their deposits or payments, should she pay? -She should tell Nick about the fake paintings to avoid larger damage to the buyers. She should tell him that she did all authentication processes to prove that the paintings were genuine. I think Danielle and Miguel have the intention of fooling Jennifer because Danielle might already know that the paintings given by Miguel were fake and yet he issued a Certificate of Authenticity for each of the work. If in case the buyers wanted a refund, Jennifer should not pay for them because she is in good faith during the sale. She may seek damages from Danielle and Miguel.
7.
On my opinion, Nick should investigate first if there was connivance between Danielle, (the University Professor), Nelson (Jennifer’s friend) and Miguel (who was the supplier of the paintings). If later on found out that there is no collusion happened, Jennifer should be liable for the fake works that she already sold. But if he finds out that there was connivance between the three, he may talk to Jennifer and tell her to sue the three for fraud.
4. With the information relayed to her by her friend Nelson Sabiendas, Jennifer Amable has grounds to believe that the works she exhibited and sold are fakes. Should she tell Nick and Amigos Trustees and the people who bought or reserved works in the show? How should the deal with Danielle Malcriada and Miguel Diestro – should she assume they are crooks in league to fool her or give them the benefit of the doubt? Assuming the buyers want a refund of their deposits or payments, should she pay? -She should tell Nick about the fake paintings to avoid larger damage to the buyers. She should tell him that she did all authentication processes to prove that the paintings were genuine. I think Danielle and Miguel have the intention of fooling Jennifer because Danielle might already know that the paintings given by Miguel were fake and yet he issued a Certificate of Authenticity for each of the work. If in case the buyers wanted a refund, Jennifer should not pay for them because she is in good faith during the sale. She may seek damages from Danielle and Miguel.
7.