Please help me with this question (FOR BUSINESS LAW)

CASE STUDY:

Jim was the CEO of a large sporting goods franchising corporation called Sporting Life Limited ("Sporting Life") and lived in Vancouver, British Columbia. The board of directors of Sporting Life decided that the corporation needed a fishing yacht to entertain business associates on when they came to the head office in Vancouver, so they tasked Jim with finding and purchasing a yacht on behalf of Sporting Life.

Jim found just the yacht parked at a peer in Victoria, British Columbia. The ship was owned by Kevin and was called the "Truth." On the yacht was a sign that read, "For sale, as is, $750,000 or best offer."Also, included on the sign was a mailing address. On September 10^th, Jim wrote a letter from his office in Vancouver and sent it to Kevin who lived in Oakville, Ontario. In the letter, he said he would purchase the yacht for $550,000. Kevin received the letter on September 15^th and sent Jim a fax offering to sell the yacht for $600,000.

Jim did not respond to the fax immediately, but on a business trip to Toronto on September 22^nd, he had a discussion with Kevin about the yacht and tried to get Kevin to reduce his price. Kevin replied that the price was "firm" at $600,000. Jim told Kevin he was going to need some time to discuss the matter with the board of directors of Sporting Life and asked Kevin to hold off selling the ship. Kevin said, "no problem, I'll give you until September 30thsince no one else at the moment has expressed any interest in buying the yacht."

When Jim returned to Vancouver, he sent a letter to Kevin agreeing to pay $600,000 for title to the yacht. The letter was posted at 11:40 a.m. on September 24th but was not delivered to Kevin in Oakville until 4:20 p.m. on September 30^th.

In the meantime, when Kevin had not heard from Jim by September 26^th, he offered to sell the yacht to Mark, who had expressed an interest to Kevin in purchasing the yacht at a meeting on September 5th. Mark accepted the offer, and the two parties executed a written contract in Mark's office on the morning of September 27^th.

When Kevin received Jim's letter on September 30^th, he immediately telephoned Jim and told Jim, "Sorry buddy, but your too late, I just sold the yacht to another party." Jim was furious with Kevin for selling the yacht before the end of September 30^th.

QUESTION:

1. Based on what Kevin said to Jim in their September 22^nd meeting, could Jim sue Kevin for misrepresentation? Why or why not? What type of misrepresentation would he be attempting to sue for? (Provide a complete legal explanation for your answer)

NOTES:

** IF YOU SAY YES JIM CAN SUE, PLEASE ALSO STATE IF ALL 6 ELEMENTS ARE USED **

Misrepresentations A misrepresentation is a pre-contractual representation made by one party to the K by the other during its negotiation which: Is about an existing fact or is a professional opinion That was made with the intention that it be relied on The recipient partyr did in fact rely on it (induced to enter K) The representation turned out to be materially false U'I-bU-JNH The recipient part1;r suffered harm as a result of relying on it and it turning out to be false, and F\" The representation did not become an express K term All 6 elements must be present for the representation to be a misrepresentation Fraudulent Misrepresentation The party who made the misrepresentation: Either (a) knew at the time that it was false g (b) made it recklessly not caring if it was true or not Remedies to innocent party: 1. Rescission of the K if certain conditions met, and, 2. Damages for the tort of deceit Negligent Misrepresentation The party who made the misrepresentation did not know at the time the representation was false, but was careless in not checking its accuracy before making it Remedies to innocent party: 1. Rescission of the K if certain conditions met, and, 2. Damages for the tort of negligence Innocent Misrepresentation The party that made the false representation did everything reasonable to ensure it was accurate when made, but it turned out it was false Only possible remedy is rescission and only if the innocent party got substantially less under the K than what they bargained for and other preconditions for rescission are met