Did Jim and Laura Buy a Car?
A legal contract should clearly state the terms of reference. For the case of the buyer and the seller, the contract must state the price of the commodity and other details such as the condition of the commodity. For the case of purchasing a car, the sales agreement is a legal contract signed by both the seller and the buyer. For Jim and Laura, they did not sign any legal written document binding them to buy the said car. The salesman, Stan duped them to produce the $100 deposit that is supposed to be refundable.
The agreement was between adults of legal capacity. In this case, Jim, Laura and the salesman are all adults of legal capacity. This means that they are individuals who are eligible for getting into a …show more content…
It is therefore justifiable to state that there was no contract to purchase the car.
The first line of facts is shown when Jim and Laura walk into the car dealership and sample a number of cars before arriving at their preferred blue 4 door sedans. The physical presence of the two buyers shows that they had the intention to buy the car. They also chose to buy a car from a dealership that is involved in the sale of motor vehicles. They were therefore right to engage the salesman who accepted to sale the blue sedan since it was on display.
The second line of facts concerns the conversation and agreement between the salesman and the couple. It is stated that the salesman accepted the cash payment of $100 and gave them a guarantee that it would be refunded in case they decided not to buy the car. In this situation, it is stated that the buyers were not issued with a receipt as proof of payment made for the deposit of the car. It is based on this fact that legally it can be argued that there was no contract between the car buyer and the salesman. This is because a legal contract must have official documents. Even if the deposit was refundable, it ought to have been captured in a written document such as a receipt that should also indicate the purpose of the payment and the terms of reference. The absence of a receipt for …show more content…
This is by virtue of the fact that he refuses to refund them the deposit of $100 when they decline to purchase the car they had initially agreed to purchase. However, from a legal point of view, it is difficult to enforce such a contract because of it being unwritten, and to make matters worse there is lack of proof of payment made to the salesman. In law the lack of written proof of payment makes it very difficult because the party that received the payment may deny receiving payment from the party that made the deposit payment (Frey& Martin, 2000). The only option would be pursuing the matter from another angle where Jim and Laura can argue that the salesman defrauded them through false pretence of misrepresentation because he did not offer them a receipt upon making the payment of $100 in deposit for the purchase of the car. Pursuing the matter from such a direction is likely to lead to a compensation of the claimed amount because the dealership and any other business has a moral duty to protect buyers from salesmen who may misrepresent themselves and fraudulently obtain money from unsuspecting
A legal contract should clearly state the terms of reference. For the case of the buyer and the seller, the contract must state the price of the commodity and other details such as the condition of the commodity. For the case of purchasing a car, the sales agreement is a legal contract signed by both the seller and the buyer. For Jim and Laura, they did not sign any legal written document binding them to buy the said car. The salesman, Stan duped them to produce the $100 deposit that is supposed to be refundable.
The agreement was between adults of legal capacity. In this case, Jim, Laura and the salesman are all adults of legal capacity. This means that they are individuals who are eligible for getting into a …show more content…
It is therefore justifiable to state that there was no contract to purchase the car.
The first line of facts is shown when Jim and Laura walk into the car dealership and sample a number of cars before arriving at their preferred blue 4 door sedans. The physical presence of the two buyers shows that they had the intention to buy the car. They also chose to buy a car from a dealership that is involved in the sale of motor vehicles. They were therefore right to engage the salesman who accepted to sale the blue sedan since it was on display.
The second line of facts concerns the conversation and agreement between the salesman and the couple. It is stated that the salesman accepted the cash payment of $100 and gave them a guarantee that it would be refunded in case they decided not to buy the car. In this situation, it is stated that the buyers were not issued with a receipt as proof of payment made for the deposit of the car. It is based on this fact that legally it can be argued that there was no contract between the car buyer and the salesman. This is because a legal contract must have official documents. Even if the deposit was refundable, it ought to have been captured in a written document such as a receipt that should also indicate the purpose of the payment and the terms of reference. The absence of a receipt for …show more content…
This is by virtue of the fact that he refuses to refund them the deposit of $100 when they decline to purchase the car they had initially agreed to purchase. However, from a legal point of view, it is difficult to enforce such a contract because of it being unwritten, and to make matters worse there is lack of proof of payment made to the salesman. In law the lack of written proof of payment makes it very difficult because the party that received the payment may deny receiving payment from the party that made the deposit payment (Frey& Martin, 2000). The only option would be pursuing the matter from another angle where Jim and Laura can argue that the salesman defrauded them through false pretence of misrepresentation because he did not offer them a receipt upon making the payment of $100 in deposit for the purchase of the car. Pursuing the matter from such a direction is likely to lead to a compensation of the claimed amount because the dealership and any other business has a moral duty to protect buyers from salesmen who may misrepresent themselves and fraudulently obtain money from unsuspecting