Interested in a PLAGIARISM-FREE paper based on these particular instructions?...with 100% confidentiality?

Order Now

Millennium Club, Inc., operates a tavern in South Bend, Indiana. In January 2003, Pamela Avila and other minors gained admission by misrepresenting themselves to be at least twenty-one years old. According to the Club’s representatives, the minors used false driver’s licenses, “fraudulent transfer of a stamp used to gain admission by another patron or other means of false identification.” To gain access, the minors also signed affidavits falsely attesting to the fact that they were age twenty-one or older. When the state filed criminal charges against the Club, the Club filed a suit in an Indiana state court against Avila and more than two hundred others, seeking damages of $3,000 each for misrepresenting their ages. The minors filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Should the court grant the motion? What are the competing policy interests in this case? If the Club was not careful in checking minors’ identification, should it be allowed to recover? If the Club reasonably relied on the minors’ representations, should the minors be allowed to avoid liability? Discuss. [Millennium Club, Inc. v. Avila, 809 N.E.2d 906 (Ind.App. 2004)] Millennium Club, Inc., operates a tavern in South Bend, Indiana. In January 2003, Pamela Avila and other minors gained admission by misrepresenting themselves to be at least twenty-one years old. According to the Club’s representatives, the minors used false driver’s licenses, “fraudulent transfer of a stamp used to gain admission by another patron or other means of false identification.” To gain access, the minors also signed affidavits falsely attesting to the fact that they were age twenty-one or older. When the state filed criminal charges against the Club, the Club filed a suit in an Indiana state court against Avila and more than two hundred others, seeking damages of $3,000 each for misrepresenting their ages. The minors filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Should the court grant the motion? What are the competing policy interests in this case? If the Club was not careful in checking minors’ identification, should it be allowed to recover? If the Club reasonably relied on the minors’ representations, should the minors be allowed to avoid liability? Discuss. [Millennium Club, Inc. v. Avila, 809 N.E.2d 906 (Ind.App. 2004)]

Millennium Club, Inc., operates a tavern in South Bend, Indiana. In January 2003, Pamela Avila and other minors gained admission by misrepresenting themselves to be at least twenty-one years old. According to the Club’s representatives, the minors used false driver’s licenses, “fraudulent transfer of a stamp used to gain admission by another patron or other means of false identification.” To gain access, the minors also signed affidavits falsely attesting to the fact that they were age twenty-one or older. When the state filed criminal charges against the Club, the Club filed a suit in an Indiana state court against Avila and more than two hundred others, seeking damages of $3,000 each for misrepresenting their ages. The minors filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Should the court grant the motion? What are the competing policy interests in this case? If the Club was not careful in checking minors’ identification, should it be allowed to recover? If the Club reasonably relied on the minors’ representations, should the minors be allowed to avoid liability? Discuss. [Millennium Club, Inc. v. Avila, 809 N.E.2d 906 (Ind.App. 2004)]

Interested in a PLAGIARISM-FREE paper based on these particular instructions?...with 100% confidentiality?

Order Now