Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Jason Rawinski

BLAW
Quiz 2

In order to discover whether or not Earnest has any contract claims

against James an analysis must be conducted. The first step is to recognize

that this claim could be a contract, promissory estoppel, Quantum Meriot, or

remedy. During step 2 we use our analysis to decide if a contract has been

established. For contract to exist, five necessary elements must be fulfilled

those elements are an offer, acceptance of the offer, consideration, capacity,

and legal purpose. The text book gives an outline of the requirements

necessary for an offer to exist. Found at the bottom of page 99 those

requirements are 1. Must indicate a clear intent to make a contract. 2. It

must be sufficiently definite so that a court can determine the actual intent

of the parties. 3. It must be communicated to the other party. There is no

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

communication between either party was the understanding that Earnest

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

to page 100 Things generally not offers are: opinions, plansand

statements of future intent. Similarly, general advertisements, agreements

to agree, catalogs, brochures, and announcements are usually not offers

because: a) they are not sufficiently definite b) they are not communicated

to a specific person or persons c) the circumstances of publication indicate

lack of contractual intent. So no offer was made by either James or his


Jason Rawinski
BLAW
Quiz 2

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

book indicated that James post didnt constitute an offer.

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

no intention of buying it. As stated above the requirements found on page 99

are 1. Must indicate a clear intent to make a contract. 2. It must be

sufficiently definite so that a court can determine the actual intent of the

parties. 3. It must be communicated to the other party. The sole intent to

check out the car was clear, James promised to wait for Earnest which

constitutes acceptance, and it was communicated over the phone. So it

meets all the requirements of an offer and James has accepted the offer. But

there is no consideration. The text book provides a definition of consideration

on page 93 stating something a party provides in exchange for something

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

incompetent include minors, insane persons, and under specific

circumstances intoxicated people. Neither James or Earnest are minors,

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

of James allowing Earnest to check out his car.

Regarding the sales transaction of the car there was also a lack of

acceptance, the book defines acceptance on page 103 as Acceptance of the

offer clinches the contractFirst, the acceptance must be clear and

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

consideration provided by the book on page 93 something a party provides

in exchange for something from the other party. James was providing the

car which he wanted to exchange for $70,000. Earnest had at least

$100,000, to he had the ability to pay but there was no exchange between

car for money, so consideration is not present. Capacity is present because

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

cannot be a contract because acceptance and consideration are not present.

Step 3 is to see if this could be considered a promissory estoppel,

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

the gratuitous promise be made carelessly or thoughtlessly; the promiser


Jason Rawinski
BLAW
Quiz 2

should know, or reasonably expect, that the promisee will act in reliance.

For a promissory estoppel to exist four elements must be present. Those

being 1. Promise 2. Detriment 3. Reliance on promise 4. Fair compensation.

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

or not reliance is present because the promiser (James) should know, or

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

waited a reasonable amount of time at which point he wasnt sure of Earnest

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

arrived so he did act in reliance. Because a promise, detriment, and reliance


Jason Rawinski
BLAW
Quiz 2

were all present this is an example of promissory estoppel. Earnest is entitled

to fair compensation.

Step 4 is to analyze the case and decide if a quantum meruit is just.

The book discusses quasi contracts and provides a definition on page 95

There is no agreement, no meeting of the minds; one party has rendered a

benefit to another under such circumstances that fairness and equity require

compensation. There are three elements that must be met for a quantum

meruit to be awarded. 1. No agreement 2. Serviced rendered 3. Fair

compensation. There is an agreement to meet at James house to check out

the car there is no doubt about that. There were no services rendered to

any party. Because there was no agreement or services rendered there is no

required compensation and therefor a quantum meruit or quasi contract is

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,

or compensates a party for harm caused by a violation of his rights (743).

There are five type of legal relief that can take the form of remedy. Those

being 1. Damages 2. Injunctive relief 3. Reformation 4. Recession 5. Specific

performance. A damage is defined as the compensation owed to the

nonbreaching party to recover any financial loss or injury cause by the

breach of the contract (157). There was no contract formed between either

party, so Earnest is not entitled to damages. Earnest may be entitled to an


Jason Rawinski
BLAW
Quiz 2

injunction. Defined on page 173 an and injunction is a court order to a

person or party to do or to refrain a specific thing. If Earnest is awarded the

promissory estoppel a fair compensation would be to check out the car

regardless of the owner. A reformation states the actual agreement of the

parties (173) and a rescission rewriting of a contract (173). No contract

has been formed so reformation and rescission is not necessary. Earnest may

be awarded specific performance. Stated on page 172 specific performance

of a contract will not be granted if a money award or damages will make the

plaintiff whole. As stated before a fair compensation would be to check out

the car, which is not a money award or damages.

Does Earnest have a valid claim against James?

The only possible claim Earnest could have is the promissory estoppel.

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 the gratuitous promise

be made carelessly or thoughtlessly; the promiser should know, or

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

should reasonably expect Earnest to arrive. There was no mention of


Jason Rawinski
BLAW
Quiz 2

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

compensation, he would be entitled to either an injunctive relief or specific

performance. A fair compensation would be for Earnest to check out the car

because that is what the original promise was for.

Can Earnest get the car dealer to reimburse him for the suit that was

destroyed?

It is possible for Earnest to be reimbursed for his suit, if Earnest

claimed Quantum meruit or quasi contract. On page 95 There is no

agreement, no meeting of the minds; one party has rendered a benefit to

another under such circumstances that fairness and equity require

compensation. Earnest saw an individual steal a set of keys to a very

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.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen