Contracts Pratice Essay 2024

.docx

School

The Taft University System, William Howard Taft University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

616

Subject

Law

Date

Jun 27, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

6

Uploaded by LennieBaby

Contracts essay July 2023 eclass Sam is the owner of the Marvelous Motors car dealership, where he sells cars manufactured by XYZ Automotive Company. Bret went to Marvelous Motors and told Sam that he wanted to buy a Model Snazzy XYZ car that was any color other than red. Sam told Bret the car would be ready on Friday, January 31. When Bret arrived to pick up the car, he discovered that it was bright red. Bret refused to accept the car, explaining that he believed drivers of red cars got more speeding tickets because the color caught the eye of Highway Patrol officers. Sam told Bret his concern was unfounded. Sam offered to let Bret try out the car for three months with Sam’s guarantee that Bret would not incur any speeding-related costs because of the car’s color. Bret then signed, without reading it, a document that Sam said was a temporary use license. The document was actually a contract between Sam and XYZ Automotive Company as the sellers, and Bret as the buyer, to buy the car for $20,000. The contract stated, in the same size font as the rest of the printing in the contract: “XYZ Automotive Company disclaims any and all warranties, express or implied.” In February, Bret got three speeding tickets. Each time, the Highway Patrol officers told Bret that the bright red color of his car had caught their eye and that they otherwise would not have seen him speeding. Bret had to pay a total of $1,700 in fines for the speeding tickets. Bret decided to return the car. Before he could do so, Bret had to pay $1,000 to have the car’s faulty transmission repaired. Sam refused to accept the car back 1. What claims, if any, may Bret make against Sam and what damages could he recover? Discuss. 2. What claims, if any, may Bret make against XYZ Automotive Company? Discuss. 1. What claims, if any, may Bret make against Sam and what damages could he recover? Discuss. U.C.C The U.C.C. applies to transactions in goods. The contract deals with the selling of a Snazzy XYZ car, thus it is a transaction in goods. Thus, the U.C.C. applies.
Merchants A merchant is a person who deals in the kind of goods involved in the transaction or otherwise holds himself out as having special knowledge and skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction. Sam is the owner of Marvelous Motors car dealership. Thus, Sam deals in the kind of goods involved in the transaction. Bret is interested in buying a Snazzy XYZ car. Thus, he doesn’t hold himself out as having special knowledge and skill peculiar to the goods involved, i.e., Snazzy XYZ car. Thus, only Sam is merchants under the U.C.C. Offer An offer is an outward manifestation of present contractual intent with definite and certain terms which is communicated to the offeree. Brent went to Marvelous Motors and told Sam, the owner, he wanted to buy a model Snazzy XYZ car in any color but red. Sam told Bret he would have the car ready by Friday January 31st. This demonstrates an outward manifestation of present contractual intent. One Snazzy XYZ car, quantity to be delivered by January 31, is the time period; Sam and Bret are the parties; price not stated , but the court will look to a reasonable price; and Snazzy XYZ car is the subject matter. Since the terms are stated with sufficient particularity, the terms are definite and certain. Bret and Sam were talking at the dealership, thus communicated to the offeree. Hence, there is a valid offer. Acceptance An acceptance is an unequivocal assent to the terms of the offer. Generally, the “mirror image” rule applies such that acceptance must be in regard to the identical terms of the offer. On January 31st, Bret arrived to pick up the car and saw a bright red Snazzy XYZ. Bret refused to accept the car. Sam offered to let Bret try out the car for 3 months with Sam’s guarantee Bret would not receive any speeding tickets. Bret signed the document. Such conduct of signing the document shows an unequivocal assent to the terms of the original offer. However, Sam told Bret he was signing a temporary license, and not an actual contract. Thus, Bret did not assent to the terms of the contract. Therefore, no acceptance occurred. Consideration Consideration is that which is bargained for and given in exchange for a return promise, requiring a benefit and a legal detriment to all parties. Sam bargained to supply a Snazzy XYZ car in exchange for Bret’s return promise to pay Sam. Bret bargained to pay for the car in exchange for Sam’s return promise to deliver a Snazzy XYZ car.
Thus, Sam obligated himself to deliver a Snazzy XYZ car to Bret in which it was not previously obligated to do. Sam incurred a legal detriment to deliver the Snazzy XYZ car the in exchange for a legal benefit of receiving payment from Bret a benefit. Conversely, Bret incurred a legal detriment of making payment to Sam in exchange for the receipt of a Snazzy XYZ car. Therefore, there is valid consideration. Parol Evidence Parol evidence is any written/oral statements made prior to or oral statements made contemporaneous with the contract. Parol evidence cannot vary, add to, or contradict terms of an original writing. Sam had Bret sign a document that he believed was a temporary use license. In fact, is was a contract between Sam and Bret for the sale of the car. The contract stated Sam and XYZ Automotive Company as the sellers, and Bret was the buyer to purchase the car for $20,00. In addition, the contract stated in the same size font, “XYZ Automotive Company disclaims any and all warranties, express and implied. Since Bret signed the agreement, although he did not read it, the agreed terms between the parties cannot vary, add to, or contradict the terms of the fully signed “Contract.” Fully Integrated Contract The parol evidence rule applies only to writing which parties intend to be the final, fully integrated expression of their bargain and does not preclude evidence of the parties’ course of dealing where such course of dealing reflects the parties’ actual intention regarding the contract terms. Sam will argue the contract was fully integrated because the written contract was intended as a complete and final expression of the parties. In addition, he and Bret signed the contract. Therefore, the contract was fully integrated. However, Bret will argue the agreement did not reflect the actual intention of the parties. Bret thought he was signing a temporary license since Sam told him that was what the document was, and Bret made it known at the time he did not want a red Snazzy XYZ car. He signed the contract under a different belief, and made a mistake by not reading it. Since there was a mistake the agreement was not a final, fully integrated expression of the bargain agreed to between the parties. However, Sam will counter that since Bret signed the contract that the agreement reflected the parties’ actual intention. Exception – Fraud Parol evidence may be used for the purpose of establishing fraud.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help