July at the Multiplex Essay

The purpose of this report is to inform Mr. Mull T. Plex and the consortium of theaters about the recommended actions to take against paintinggoer Tommy. The options include exploit with the judicial proceeding or negotiating a settlement that will be dealt with privately. The litigation against the imperial Theater is made by Tommy, a customer who claimed to perk up acquire a poor experience at the theater. In the following report, we used legal, statistical, and ethical reasoning.Legal After analyzing both sectionalisationies facts, there is a lack of dishonest 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 purple Theaters behalf. This case does not need to proceed and can be fixed by making small adjustments to Royal Theaters policies.Based on these an alyses, we advise Mr. Mull T. Plex and the consortium to negotiate a private settlement. In order to prevent this from occurring again, we have in addition suggested our recommendations on adjustments to Royal Theaters ticket stubs and refund policy.IntroductionMr. Mull T. Plex and the consortium of theaters around the nation 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 dishonorable misrepresentation and the consortium of theaters is very well concerned with the possibility of a class action lawsuit that could prevail from this case. Tommys 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 thesituation and to authenticate whether or not Tommys case will pre vail in court. We have put together a thorough report containing evidence that Tommys case against the Royal Theater is very un deally to be triumphant in court, survey cores and recommendations which will not only help the Royal Theater, but also the consortium of theaters to abstain from future allegations such as the ones made by Tommy. Facts1. Representation of factsTommy Royal theaters informed Tommy that the movie begun at 100 PM. Tommy not only saw it on a newspaper advertisement but also confirmed it with the clerk. It was also the dimming of the light at 100 PM that led Tommy to believe that the showing was about to begin.2. Representation was falseTommy Tommy was lead to believe that the movie was to start at 100 PM, not the commercials. Since the commercials were 20 minutes long, the movie technically started at 120 PM and should have been represented like that.3. MisrepresentationTommy Tommy is not a regular moviegoer having some free condemnation gave him the opportun ity to enjoy a movie. Following a misrepresented duration line left Tommy in a fraudulent misrepresentation of an untrue statement. Royal Theaters shouldnt assume that just because other theaters show commercials that they shouldnt fracture the knowledge of the movies true start time. Royal Theater Royal Theater did not lie to Tommy. The viewing did start at 100 PM. The commercials are part of the experience of watching a movie and have been for a while not only at that theater but many others. The dimming of the lights is an indication that the audience should grab their seat so they wont disturb the audience if they walk in a couple minutes late from the unfeigned movie.4. pattern the Plaintiff Should cuss UponTommy Tommy saw an ad that was intentionally placed for movie goers by Royal Theaters. Relying on the information provided, Tommy rushed to study it on time to the movie that was said to start at 100 PM. What Tommy didnt know was that Royal Theaters intentionally does nt inform people that the commercials start at 100 PM and lasts about 20 minutes. Dimming the lightsat 100 PM also seem to have prompted Tommy into coming early so he wouldnt cope to find a seat, forcing him to watch the commercials. Royal Theater Royal Theaters is aware that not everyone is punctual. This commercial time allows people to not run around frantically looking for seats. Instead, it allows people to use the restroom facilities, grab any snacks and drinks from the concession stand, and return to the screening to avoid missing the movie.5. The Plaintiff Reasonably Did So RelyTommy relied on the continuous notion provided by the theater that the movie starts at 100 PM. Taking initiative to double check the times left Tommy no other choice but to trust and rely on the theaters ad and employees.6. DamagesTommy Being emotionally and financially damaged, Tommy is suing Mr. Mull T. Plex for the money spent on the ticket, concession stand, gas and mileage, and his time that wa s wasted. Royal Theater Tommy did not suffer any severe damages. Driving to the destination is a choice that all moviegoers make on their own. Whether or not they would like to enjoy snacks and a drink is their decision to make and he had no complaints about that. The movie that was being play at the theater was an anticipated one that most people seem to have enjoyed. Survey ResultsWe conducted a random survey consisting of a sample surface of 100 moviegoers. They were asked if they were disturbed by the commercials and only 6% of the sample were disturbed by the commercials. Another random survey was conducted and 300 people were asked if the commercials were a disturbance. The result was 6% of the sample were disturbed. This shows that the showing of the commercials before the movie didnt disturb many moviegoers. Please refer to the attached appendix for the full analytics. RecommendationThe litigation made against Royal Theater heavily revolves around customer service. In order to improve customer service it is advised that all employees answer justly in accordance to show times. Employees should inform customers the time the lights dim and the time the actual filmbegins. In addition, a refund policy should be implicated. If the customer isnt satisfied with the movie within the first 30 minutes, they reserve the right to a full refund. Movie ticket stubs should indicate what time the actual film begins to avoid future confusion with movie patrons. To ensure that Tommy is satisfied, the Royal Theater should issue a private apology. We also recommend that Tommy be happy a pair of movie tickets and vouchers for the concession stand. A public announcement should be published in the local newspaper informing future moviegoers that there are 20 minutes of commercials before any movie. ConclusionUsing legal, statistical and ethical reasoning, we found that Tommys case is minor and should not tally the courtroom. The issue roots from Tommys opinion on the Roya l Theaters customer service and commercial policy. Tommys reasoning does not charter legal value, therefore would not make it to a court room. Only 1% of moviegoers felt bothered by commercials before their anticipated screening. The consortium shouldnt adopt drastic changes, as our survey results displayed that there werent many movie patrons disappointed that their film started twenty minutes late due to commercials. By issuing a private apology, Tommy would feel appreciated as a customer. We feel that by applying minor changes, movie patrons will continue to frequent Royal Theaters and leave happy with their experience.