In ten pages this paper discusses a fictitious case involving a Maltese retriever puppy purchase and a proposed buyer's lawsuit less than a year thereafter. Four sources are cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: D0_SNConcur.doc
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
bought something and not gotten what youve paid for? If youre like most of us, it has happened so often that unless youve been blatantly ripped off,
you can probably chalk it up to creativity in advertising. Or simply, a marketing experts taking creative license with snappy/ descriptive/ evocative adjectives in the English language. However,
what in these practices constitutes crossing the line? How far is too far? Does there come a point when one should climb the rafters, screaming phrases that
are tantamount to "deceptive trade practices," "misrepresentation" or "fraud"? Without question, legal theorists, moralists and the like believe that there is a definitive line that morally,
ethically and legally should not be crossed. Nonetheless, that hasnt deterred the faction of the population that seems determined to separate the general populace from its hard-earned dollars. Maltese
Anyone? In summarizing this case the relevant facts are as follows: The Findleys own (and have bred) their registered, prize-winning Maltese
Retriever. After advertising in the newspaper that a litter of puppies would be available for sale, they received nine inquiries from prospective buyers. Seven of the
buyers wanted "show" quality puppies and the other two stated that they simply wanted to own the Maltese breed. However, the Findley bitch only gave birth to seven pups
- which meant obviously that the two potential buyers who were interested in "pet/ companion" quality dogs would be have to be disappointed. Not wanting to dash anyones
hopes, the Findleys bought two additional puppies from the owner of their dogs sister. They then sold them at cost to the latter two prospective buyers. The upshot