Kenneth Avila, Esq. - Patents, Trademarks, and Business Law
  • Home
  • Meet the Lawyer
  • Practice Areas
    • Business Law
    • Intellectual Property Law >
      • Patent FAQ and Fees
      • Trademark FAQ and Fees
      • Copyright FAQ and Fees
  • Resources
    • Blog
    • IP Twitter Feeds
    • IP Websites
  • Contact Me
  • Disclaimer
Inland Empire - (909) 566-2801
Santa Barbara - (805) 500-6241
Tennessee - (423) 226-8036
​Georgia - (404) 436-0899

Asked and Answered:  In the past business transactions were treated as "Caveat emptor", latin for buyer beware, transactions.  It is no longer that way as buyers, especially under the UCC, have rights as well.

12/27/2011

0 Comments

 
Question:  Can a gold store make you pay back money after they buy your item and then later find out it's fake?

Facts:  I had no clue that it was not genuine.

Answer:  There are two areas of law that are applicable here - Common Law Contract Law and UCC Contract Law.  If the gold was in such a form to make it unique than Common Law will apply, otherwise UCC will apply.  The gold item is unique if it is the only one of its kind.  Example would be a gold sculpture by a famous artist or a gold ring that had been in the family for many years.  Those are one of a kind and cannot be replaced if lost.  The facts here seem to indicate that the item is not unique.  If that is the case then UCC law will apply.  However I will analyze your question under both laws.

Common Law - Mutual Mistake

Mutual Mistake is a material misrepresentation of fact that goes to the essence of the contract.  The facts do not indicate how you represented the gold item but if you told the gold store that the item was gold then you made a misrepresentation.  If you stated to the store that the gold was the "best gold to be found in the state" then your statement is not of fact but what we call "puffing".  However if you stated that the item was gold then it would be a fact.  Here is suspect that you were not puffing but stating a fact to the store.  Finally the fact went to the essence of the contract (your selling of the item to the store in exchange for money is considered a contract) because both you and the store believed the item to be valuable gold.

So in summary we have what is referred to as a mutual mistake.  At common law there is no contract formed when both parties were mutually mistaken by the subject matter of the contract.  Since no contract was formed the store has the right to request that you return the money.

UCC Law - Express Warranty

As discussed in the first paragraph I believe that UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) law is applicable here.  Under UCC Law there exists a concept called "Express Warranty".  An express warranty exists when the seller (you) makes a statement of fact, in writing or orally, about the goods being sold to the buyer.  If you told the store that the item was gold then you have made an express warranty to the store that the item is indeed gold.  If you told the store "I think this item is gold but I am not sure" then you have not made an express warranty that the item is gold.  If you did make an express warranty to the store then the store can sue you to recover their loss.

Good Faith Sale

You stated that you believed the item to be gold.  In legal terms we say that you acted in "good faith".  However note that good faith does not "trump" an express warranty or a mutual mistake.

Conclusion

In conclusion, from the simple facts presented, it would seem to me that the gold store has the legal right to get back from you the money they paid for the "gold" item as long as they are willing to return the "gold" item to you.
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Agreements
    Arbitrary Trademarks
    Artificial Intelligence
    Business
    China
    Common-Law Rights
    Contracts
    Conversion
    Copyrights
    Corporations
    Counterfeit
    Counterfeiters
    Courses
    Defamation
    Descriptive Trademarks
    Design Patents
    Employee
    Employer
    Excusable Nonuse
    Fanciful Trademarks
    Federal Rights
    Foreign Filing
    FTC
    Generic Trademarks
    Hashtags
    Incontestable Trademark
    Independent Contractors
    Infringement Searches
    Injunction
    INTA
    Intellectual Property
    Invention Promotion Firms
    Inventors
    Latches
    License
    License Agreements
    LLC
    OECD
    Patentability Searches
    Patents
    Patent Searching
    Plant Patents
    Principle Register
    Roundtable
    Scams
    Software
    State Rights
    Suggestive Trademarks
    Supplemental Register
    Trade Libel
    Trademarks
    Trade Secrets
    UCC
    Unclean Hands
    Unfair Competition
    USA
    USPTO
    Utility Patents
    Videos
    Website
    WIPO

Picture

Copyright © 2011 - 2022 by Making Innovation Count PLLC. Notice: The information presented on this website is for general informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created between you and Making Innovation Count PLLC simply by your use of this website.
  Redlands: 1255 West Colton Ave., CA 92374 
​Ontario:  3281 E Guasti Rd., CA 91761
Tennessee:  
651 E. 4th Street, TN 37403
Georgia:  260 Peachtree Street North West, Atlanta
Santa Barbara: 351 Paseo Nuevo, CA 93101


Note that these offices are virtual and only for the purpose of meeting with client who have previously made an appointment.
  • Home
  • Meet the Lawyer
  • Practice Areas
    • Business Law
    • Intellectual Property Law >
      • Patent FAQ and Fees
      • Trademark FAQ and Fees
      • Copyright FAQ and Fees
  • Resources
    • Blog
    • IP Twitter Feeds
    • IP Websites
  • Contact Me
  • Disclaimer