Mason’s New Car
The court will hear the case since there was a contract signed between the Mason’s and the dealership at R&G Company. The law stipulates that a contract is any agreement between two parties for the provision of a service or product that is enforceable by law (Emerson, 2009). In any given contract, there are different elements that justify the agreement and include but are not limited to:
An offer that details exactly what will be provided by the agreement. The two parties are hereby expected to acknowledge the details of the written agreement that they intend to fulfil (Emerson, 2009). In this case, the Mason’s entered into a car deal contract with the R&G Company for the purchase of a new Chrysler 200.
An acceptance of the …show more content…
Although the involvement of a third party may be costly, some mediators may offer the service for free. Mediators encourage mutual agreements between the two parties and offer solutions against victimization. Parties should engage a mediator with considerable knowledge on the subject matter of dispute. This will enable parties to receive fair expectations from the process unlike a litigation process where the ruling is influenced more by the rule of law rather than the nature of dispute (Blake, …show more content…
In arbitration, the parties are required to conform to the rules governing the process and include accepting the imposed decision by the arbitrator. This process is disadvantageous as compared to a litigation process because it conforms to the same procedure but with dire consequences. A binding arbitration is without an appeal and its ruling is final despite the objections of either party.
Under the law, fraud entails any deliberate deception for self gain (Alghamdi, 2011). Using the evidence provided for in this court relating to the records in the odometer disclosure form by the Mason’s, this court rules that they committed fraud and should therefore be entitled to pay any consequential costs arising from the fraud. In this case, the Mason’s are barred from recovering any amount from the sale of the van until it is settled by the
The court will hear the case since there was a contract signed between the Mason’s and the dealership at R&G Company. The law stipulates that a contract is any agreement between two parties for the provision of a service or product that is enforceable by law (Emerson, 2009). In any given contract, there are different elements that justify the agreement and include but are not limited to:
An offer that details exactly what will be provided by the agreement. The two parties are hereby expected to acknowledge the details of the written agreement that they intend to fulfil (Emerson, 2009). In this case, the Mason’s entered into a car deal contract with the R&G Company for the purchase of a new Chrysler 200.
An acceptance of the …show more content…
Although the involvement of a third party may be costly, some mediators may offer the service for free. Mediators encourage mutual agreements between the two parties and offer solutions against victimization. Parties should engage a mediator with considerable knowledge on the subject matter of dispute. This will enable parties to receive fair expectations from the process unlike a litigation process where the ruling is influenced more by the rule of law rather than the nature of dispute (Blake, …show more content…
In arbitration, the parties are required to conform to the rules governing the process and include accepting the imposed decision by the arbitrator. This process is disadvantageous as compared to a litigation process because it conforms to the same procedure but with dire consequences. A binding arbitration is without an appeal and its ruling is final despite the objections of either party.
Under the law, fraud entails any deliberate deception for self gain (Alghamdi, 2011). Using the evidence provided for in this court relating to the records in the odometer disclosure form by the Mason’s, this court rules that they committed fraud and should therefore be entitled to pay any consequential costs arising from the fraud. In this case, the Mason’s are barred from recovering any amount from the sale of the van until it is settled by the