Bob took the painting back to Jane and asked for a refund. Jane refused on the basis that she never gave refunds and that Bob took the risk that the painting was not done by Bill. Should Bob sue in small claims court, who will likely win and why?

Full Question:

Jane operates a home decorations shop selling slightly used goods. She bought a painting from Sally for the shop. Bob came into the shop and asked if the painting was by Bill, a local artist of some repute. Jane, without checking with Sally, says, "I'm sure it is" because she really did think it looked like one of Bill's paintings. Bob bought the painting. A week or so later, he took the painting by Bill's studio. Bill just laughed and said that he never painted anything that horrible. Bob took the painting back to Jane and asked for a refund. Jane refused on the basis that she never gave refunds and that Bob took the risk that the painting was not done by Bill. Should Bob sue in small claims court, who will likely win and why?

a. Bob, on the basis of negligent misrepresentation

b. Bob, on the basis of innocent misrepresentation.

c. Bob, on the basis of a unilateral mistake.

d. Jane, on the basis that Bob accepted the risk of loss.

e. Jane, both on the basis that Bob accepted the risk of loss and that he agreed by an oral contract to purchase the painting.

Answer:

a. Bob, on the basis of negligent misrepresentation

Explanation:

Negligent misrepresentation

occurs when someone makes a statement without making sure this statement is based on true facts. Negligent misrepresentation happens when a person may not lie directly (saying something knowing it to be untrue), but makes a statement about something with no factual backing. Bob will likely win here because Jane "assumed" the painting was from Bill without confirming it was.