Did Jim and Laura buy a car Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay for business law class reviewing contracts....

Description

Cory Tkatch Touchstone 2 Business Law 12 July 2021 Did Jim and Laura buy a car? In order to be a binding contract, various components must exist. All the parties, mutual promises, terms of performance, execution, acceptance, consideration, and mutual understanding for a contract remain legally binding and applicable. The most significant part of a contract is at the time of closing the deal. For this case, it would be at the point of actual sale of the blue car, which Laura and Jim liked. However, after considering their eagerness to spend up to $400.00 monthly, the two agreed. The initial opinion for procuring the car does not satisfy. There should be a clear mutual understanding and agreement for the smooth exchange of property for any contract to exist. Both parties needed to agree to the terms placed, and this must be without hidden clauses within the agreement. Like in this case, the Salesman says that the deposit is refundable and changes his attitude once the customers make an adverse decision towards purchasing the car.

The seller plays his role in contacting his customers to close the deal, and since that did not happen, he feels that the initial deposit was a commitment into a contract. However, that is not the case since the two parties made no committing documents. There is a mutual agreement that either party could revoke at will since nothing bound them together. Both parties communicated that the $100.00 was just a deposit. However, the seller never disclosed to the prospective buyers that the deposit would be part of the purchasing contract. The contract has to be something lawful that binds two or more parties according to the requirements of the law (Blum, 2007). In

the absence of such binding documents such as receipts, Laura and Jim have the right to make a contrary choice from their initial decision, and that obliges Stan to give them a refund of the $100.00 deposit.

Considering having created legal relations as a component of a contract, the arrangement between Jim, Laura, and Stan lacked in the capacity. This element is vital in commercial transactions as it can help either party with a possible lawsuit due to failure to fulfill the statutory provisions. In this scenario, there was no binding contract and the claim by Stan Salesman that the $100.00 deposit as part of the contract is void. With a mutual agreement, and either party could withdraw before the completion of the initial agreement. Legally, Stan cannot force Jim and Laura to buy the car without the lack of proof. He had only decided to sell the car, and the buyers have initially been willing to deposit with monthly installments to follow, which they later feel incapable of making.

The seller did not have any legal binding time for the offer to last. He cannot claim that being the one who later contacted the buyers was a sign of their acceptance of the offer. It is upon Laura and Jim to accept the offer by making a further payment towards the purchase of the car, and that conduct shall be a sign that there is a contract of purchase between the buyer and the seller. In this case, the seller did not apply any form for acknowledgment of acceptance, so he did not receive the buyers. Receipting the buyers would be a binding sign for an ongoing contract, and the terms specified within the receipt would bind Laura and Jim to purchase adhere to the requirements. Failing to receipt the buyers is a clear indication of mischief on the part of the seller since it shows that he wanted to hold them responsible for the

purchase offer without giving them complete details regarding the acceptance of the deposit. The agreement is that the deposit is refundable, and that gives the buyers the authority to demand a refund since they changed their minds.

It is important to note that partial acceptance is not a sign of a valid contract. In this case, the buyer only made a partial payment of a deposit contrary to the full agreed amount of initial needed $100.00. with a counteroffer made to the seller, the buyer can retain the deal or revoke it. Thus, Jim and Laura still have the option of not buying the car due to the lack of any binding or valid contract. Telling the buyers that the deposit is part payment of the contract amount is the denial of genuine approval needed from the buyers to make a successful purchase. Stan is intimidating the buyers into taking up the issue as a contract, and the buyers remain entitled to protection for avoiding contractual obligation. By claiming this contract, Stan could be guilty of misrepresenting Jim and Laura. Stan forces the buyers to comply with the wrong contact. He took their deposit and expected it to binds the buyers as a contract. That is conflicted with the initial agreement that the deposit is refundable. Without their prior knowledge that paying a deposit is a sign for instituted the contract. The buyers are innocent, and they can go ahead and contact a lawyer to help them in the process with rescinding the situation and claiming for their compensation from Stan.

However, the buyers' problem in this summary showed the lack of required documentation as evidence. The initial agreement was that the deposit that goes towards the sale of the car was refundable. Due to the difficulty of ascertaining the lack of supporting documents, the game becomes the seller's words against the buyers. Since he has the cash, it is upon him to refund the

buyers or ignore their impasse. The buyers could face the risk of losing in this case since the deposit has no tie to support the opportunity of getting a full refund.

Further, despite the lack of contract in this scenario, the Salesman could still claim storage fees from the point of deposit payment. He can use the deposit as insurance for the car since it is an insurable commodity leaving the buyers with a small claim for a refund. The buyer's responsibility is to ensure full payment for property. Since there was no documentation during the deposit payment, the seller cannot enforce the initial agreement. It may seem valid to claim that the deposit meant a commitment to purchase the car, but it is not legally binding, making his claim void of backup just like that of the buyers. In this case, neither of the parties, buyer, and seller can apply this void state. Notably, the depositing of an amount of $100.00 was mere committal that never held any capacities of a contract. There is a clear indication in the case that there was no documentation, and that means that there was no description of the property for purchase. A contract must have clear descriptions of the property one considers purchasing, which goes for the seller. There has to be a clear description of the property on sale, which lacks this scenario. Since there was no signing of any documents in this case, the seller cannot force the buyers to finalize the purchase. This case does not even require rescission since there was no signing of any documents to use as a contract. The seller has no option but to refund the buyers their money since they already changed their minds regarding their continuation with the purchase.

The law of contracts demands that a contract is enforceable or unenforceable. In this case, since there were no binding elements. With the buyer telling the seller

that they no longer wish to purchase the car, there is a legal termination of the initial agreement. Since the buyers later decline the offer, the ensuing lack of mutual agreement means the offer is unacceptable, and even if there were a contract, it would become void.

References: The legal environment of business: Text and cases: ethical, regulatory, global, and e-commerce issues. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Blum, B. A. (2007). Contracts: Examples & explanations. Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Burton, S. J. (2009). Elements of contract interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cross, F. B., Miller, R. L. R., & Cross, F. B. (2009)....