She stopped payment and sued the television company. The television company has attempted to take possession of the set. Decision?
Carolyn Murphy, a welfare recipient with very limited education and with four minor children, responded to an advertisement that offered the opportunity to purchase televisions without a deposit or credit history. She entered into a rent-to-own contract for a twenty-five-inch console color television set that required seventy-eight weekly payments of $16.00 (a total of $1,248, which was two and one-half times the retail value of the set). Under the contract, the renter could terminate the agreement by returning the television and forfeiting any payments already made. After Murphy had paid $436 on the television, she read a newspaper article criticizing the lease plan. She stopped payment and sued the television company. The television company has attempted to take possession of the set. Decision?
The company selling the television has made a deceiving advertisement through which it is trying to sell the television at a price that is much higher than the television's original price.
Individual C was deceived and made the payment but after knowing the truth, Individual C can claim the amount back from the company in court.
Individual C has been deceived by the company's advertisement of a television. The television is offered at a high price as compared to its original price. So, Individual C is going to be favored in the court.