july at the multiplex
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to inform Mr. Mull T. Plex and the consortium of theaters about the recommended actions to take against moviegoer Tommy. The options include proceeding with the litigation or negotiating a settlement that will be dealt with privately.
The litigation against the Royal Theater is made by Tommy, a customer who claimed to have received a poor experience at the theater. In the following report, we used legal, statistical, and ethical reasoning.
Legal: After analyzing both parties’ facts, there is a lack of fraudulent misrepresentation to follow suit. Therefore, Tommy has a weak standing.
Statistical: 94% of surveyed moviegoers were not fazed by the commercials screened before the featured film.
Ethical: The litigation by Tommy was propelled by the lack of quality customer service on Royal Theater’s behalf. This case does not need to proceed and can be resolved by making small adjustments to Royal Theater’s policies.
Based on these analyses, we advise Mr. Mull T. Plex and the consortium to negotiate a private settlement. In order to prevent this from occurring again, we have also suggested our recommendations on adjustments to Royal Theater’s ticket stubs and refund policy.
Introduction
Mr. Mull T. Plex and the consortium of theaters around the area have hired our consulting team to analyze and break down the litigation against the Royal Theater made by Tommy. Tommy is suing the Royal Theater on charges of fraudulent misrepresentation and the consortium of theaters is very well concerned with the possibility of a class action lawsuit that could prevail from this case. Tommy’s lawsuit is based on his experience at the Royal Theater during the screening of movie “The Governator.” After a displeasing chain of events, Tommy demanded a full refund in which Royal Theater refused. Mr. Plex and the consortium of theaters have asked us to assess the situation and to authenticate whether or not
The purpose of this report is to inform Mr. Mull T. Plex and the consortium of theaters about the recommended actions to take against moviegoer Tommy. The options include proceeding with the litigation or negotiating a settlement that will be dealt with privately.
The litigation against the Royal Theater is made by Tommy, a customer who claimed to have received a poor experience at the theater. In the following report, we used legal, statistical, and ethical reasoning.
Legal: After analyzing both parties’ facts, there is a lack of fraudulent misrepresentation to follow suit. Therefore, Tommy has a weak standing.
Statistical: 94% of surveyed moviegoers were not fazed by the commercials screened before the featured film.
Ethical: The litigation by Tommy was propelled by the lack of quality customer service on Royal Theater’s behalf. This case does not need to proceed and can be resolved by making small adjustments to Royal Theater’s policies.
Based on these analyses, we advise Mr. Mull T. Plex and the consortium to negotiate a private settlement. In order to prevent this from occurring again, we have also suggested our recommendations on adjustments to Royal Theater’s ticket stubs and refund policy.
Introduction
Mr. Mull T. Plex and the consortium of theaters around the area have hired our consulting team to analyze and break down the litigation against the Royal Theater made by Tommy. Tommy is suing the Royal Theater on charges of fraudulent misrepresentation and the consortium of theaters is very well concerned with the possibility of a class action lawsuit that could prevail from this case. Tommy’s lawsuit is based on his experience at the Royal Theater during the screening of movie “The Governator.” After a displeasing chain of events, Tommy demanded a full refund in which Royal Theater refused. Mr. Plex and the consortium of theaters have asked us to assess the situation and to authenticate whether or not