Honest harry vs Johnson.
The main legal issue is fraudulent misinterpretation. Harry is implying cause of action, seeking damages
to fraudulent activity led by Johnson and his family. Did Johnson and his family carried any fraudulent
intention, where Harry was induced to enter a contract of misrepresentation, false representation of
facts?
Johnson's family induced Harry to buy Lemon car, providing false information, stating it to be a 'spare'
vehicle and had been driven only in good weather. Johnson's also tried to hide the fact; the car was
crashed by his son "Tim while trying to qualify for NASCAR. This misrepresentation led Harry to buy car
from Johnson, and thereby enter in contract with Bao, which then likely puts Harry liable for "Duty of
care" as negligent misinterpretation with Bao.
Johnson's could try to argue with contributory negligence; Harry should have inspected vehicle for his
conformity before buying the car, which would never set in as negligent misinterpretation of contract
with Bao.
The possible outcome is that Johnson's likely held liable for whatso losses Harry was encumbered with.
False representation of fact, as a result to Johnson's fraudulent intention to sell the contract is viewed
discovered. In addition, Harry could be imposed with certain duty of care to Bao, as a contributory
negligence for failing to secure possible risk.