Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
12. In a jurisdiction that follows the common-law definition of forgery, the calligrapher has
A skilled calligrapher crafted a letter on very old paper. The calligrapher included details that would lead knowledgeable readers to believe that the letter had been written by Thomas Jefferson to a friend. The calligrapher, who had a facsimile of Jefferson's autograph, made the signature and other writing on the letter resemble Jefferson's. The calligrapher knew that the letter would attract the attention of local collectors. When it did and the calligrapher was contacted about selling it, the calligrapher said that it had come into her hands from a foreign collector who wished anonymity, and that she could make no promises about its authenticity. As the calligrapher had hoped, a collector paid her $5,000 for the letter. Later the collector discovered the letter was not authentic, and handwriting analysis established that the calligrapher had written the letter.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
In contrast, the crime of common law false pretenses is: (i) obtaining title (obtaining ownership rather than mere possession); (ii) by false misrepresentations (must be intentional false statements); (iii) of past or existing fact (misrepresentation of a future event does not qualify); (iv) with the intent to defraud (the victim must be deceived or must act in reliance of defendant's false statement in passing title).
C is correct. Here, the calligrapher did not commit forgery because the document has no legal significance, in contrast to a document such as a contract. The document in this case was merely purporting to be a letter. The calligrapher did, however, commit false pretense because she obtained ownership of the $5,000, with the intent to defraud the collector, through intentional and false misrepresentations of the nature of the letter by saying it was from a collector rather than created by herself. She misrepresented who owned the letter and how she obtained the letter, and those misrepresentations induced the buyer into giving her the money. Accordingly, the calligrapher committed false pretenses but not forgery.
A is incorrect. As mentioned above, the letter, by itself, had no legal significance, so the calligrapher did not commit forgery. The forged document must have purported legal significance (a document that carries legal value, for example, a contract or a check). In this case, the letter did not have legal significance.
B is incorrect. This answer choice misstates the elements of common law forgery by leaving out the element that the writing must have legal significance. Further, this answer states that the calligrapher has not committed false pretenses since she made no representation as to the authenticity of the document. The calligrapher's fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the creation and history of the document, which induced the buyer into giving her the money for the letter, are sufficient for a finding that the calligrapher committed false pretenses.
D is incorrect. This answer choice ignores the calligrapher's fraudulent misrepresentations about the creation and history of the document, which induced the buyer into giving her title to the money for the letter.