Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
BLAW
Quiz 2
remedy. During step 2 we use our analysis to decide if a contract has been
and legal purpose. The text book gives an outline of the requirements
must be sufficiently definite so that a court can determine the actual intent
offer pertaining to the sale of the car because there was no clear intent to
make a contract to sell the car, there was only a verbal agreement for
Earnest to check out the car. Not only was nothing definite but the only
would go to James to check out the car. Yes, James did post an add
Graigslist that he was interested in selling his Aston Martin but according
because: a) they are not sufficiently definite b) they are not communicated
Graigslist post, there communication over the phone did not constitute an
offer because it did not meet the said requirements, and an excerpt from the
The only possible offer in this situation was the offer for earnest to
come check out the car, no other intent was stated. For all James knew,
Earnest could have just been a gear head looking at a beautiful car who had
sufficiently definite so that a court can determine the actual intent of the
check out the car was clear, James promised to wait for Earnest which
meets all the requirements of an offer and James has accepted the offer. But
from the other party. James was providing Earnest with a check out of the
car, but what did Earnest provide? Nothing. Although both had capacity,
which is, according to page 99, persons who may be considered legally
insane, and neither have been drinking that we know of. So capacity is
present and the act of selling a car is perfectly legal. So the only element not
Jason Rawinski
BLAW
Quiz 2
present is consideration, and because of this there is no contract for the offer
Regarding the sales transaction of the car there was also a lack of
unqualified Second, the offeree must accept the in any manner required by
the offer. James left before Earnest had arrived, Earnest had also not made
an offer to buy the car yet, therefore James could not accept an offer that
doesnt exist. Consideration is also not present, going off of the definition of
in exchange for something from the other party. James was providing the
$100,000, to he had the ability to pay but there was no exchange between
both parties are not minor, insane, or intoxicated (page 99). And Legal
purpose is present because there is nothing illegal about selling a car. This
which is defined on page 109 occurs when a promise is made without any
consideration, but the promisee, relying upon the gracious promise takes
certain action, or fails to take action, to his detriment. It is not sufficient that
should know, or reasonably expect, that the promisee will act in reliance.
A promise is present; James had promised to wait until Earnest arrived at his
house to check out the car after Earnest tells him hell be right over.
Earnest experienced a detriment when he arrived ten hours later and learned
that James had left to sell his car before he had arrived, the detriment being
he was unable to check out the car. An argument can be made as to whether
reasonably expect, that the promisee will act in reliance (109) the law is
stating that James must expect or reasonably expect that Earnest be right
over. When someone says Ill be right over do you expect to wait for ten
hours? Because Earnest told James he would be right over James expected
him within a reasonable amount of time and he waited for him. Earnest had
to wait six hours for the helicopter repair man to arrive, he could have called
James to inform him he would arrive later, and that would have informed
James about the status of his arrival, so by law he would know Earnest is still
coming and should expect his arrival. Hours rolled by and finally James had
was still on his way and decided he didnt want to wait any longer and made
moves to sell his car. Even though it was reasonable to expect Earnest was
not coming due to the amount of time that had passed by Earnest still
to fair compensation.
benefit to another under such circumstances that fairness and equity require
compensation. There are three elements that must be met for a quantum
the car there is no doubt about that. There were no services rendered to
not present.
Step 5 is to analyze the case to see if there are any remedies present
for Earnest. A remedy is legal relief that prevents a wrong, enforces a right,
There are five type of legal relief that can take the form of remedy. Those
breach of the contract (157). There was no contract formed between either
has been formed so reformation and rescission is not necessary. Earnest may
of a contract will not be granted if a money award or damages will make the
The only possible claim Earnest could have is the promissory estoppel.
promisee, relying upon the gracious promise takes certain action, or fails to
take action, to his detriment. It is not sufficient that the gratuitous promise
reasonably expect, that the promisee will act in reliance. All of the element
were met, there was a promise. Earnest said that he would be right over
and James promised to hold the car until he arrived. Even though it took
Earnest ten hours to get to James dwelling, Earnest did take actions to get
there by calling the repair man. However according to the definition James
Earnest informing James of his helicopter troubles, so for all James knew
Earnest could have left him high and dry. Leading James to follow another
lead to sell his car, leaving earnest with a detriment. But is the reliance
valid? The reliance being that Earnest would be right over and that James
would wait with the car for Earnest. If Earnest was entitled to fair
performance. A fair compensation would be for Earnest to check out the car
Can Earnest get the car dealer to reimburse him for the suit that was
destroyed?
expensive car and he acted without hesitation. There was no meeting of the
minds. Earnest did provide a service, which was stopping Rump from stealing
a car. Earnests serviced resulted in two events occurring. One event was
that he stopped Rump from stealing an Aston Martin from the dealership
saving them from the losses of a stolen car. The second is that he ruined his
very expensive suit. If Earnest hadnt acted the dealership would have a
Jason Rawinski
BLAW
Quiz 2
huge loss because of the stolen car. It is very fair for the dealership to only
pay $6,000 to replace his suit instead of paying $60,000 for a new car.