Happy Hippie Pty Ltd. (1992)

1285 Words3 Pages

(Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, 2011, p. 12). In respect of common law, forgery includes two distinct offences that include forgery and uttering of something. Perez (1992) argues that common law takes these crimes as specific intent of offences, as they require evidence of precise intention to deceive. Happy Hippie Pty Ltd inflated the figures of the cafe by 60% so that they could lure Mr. Manfredi to buy the premises. Therefore, Happy Hippie Pty Ltd committed the offence of forgery and altering. Forgery is not just an offence because the writings provided contain false information or because the document is not what it purports to be. Green (2006) argues that for the court of law to consider a document a forgery, the whole of it must have an obvious legal significance. The alterations that Happy Hippie Pty Ltd made through their director Mr. Elvis …show more content…

The first element is that there must be a false statement of a material fact. This means that Mr. Manfredi must provide all the evidence of fraud he collected when inspecting the premises. Bowman (2001, p. 12) states that
For a false statement to be deceitful, the false statements or evidence provided must all relate to a material fact. Any false statement provided by Mr. Manfredi that does not relate to the disputed case will not be considered deceitful. The second element that must be there for the courts to consider the issue of fraud is knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue. In this element, he must show that Happy Hippie Pty Ltd made some fault statements with the intention of deceiving him into buying the premises. As described by Bozeman (1990, p. 23), this is an easy element to proof for Mr. Manfredi because he has all the evidence required by the court of law to prove that the statements provided by Mr. Elvis Eggplant were all false. The court will most probably rule in favour of the buyer for all the evidence provided on

Open Document