In order for a valid contract to exist in the state of Georgia, there must be a “meeting of the minds” as to the terms of the agreement. There were never any specific discussions between the Mason’s and R&G in regards to terms of an agreement. Nor was there any offer put forth by the Mason’s or R&G in this case. The only mention of consideration or potential terms in this case was the parameter put forth by Mr. Mason that his note must be under $400 per month. For this reason, it is the determination by the court that the standard of “assent of the parties to the terms of the contract” has not been met in this case. The fourth and final element is also the easiest to determine in the case. A contract cannot be enforced by Georgia law unless its purpose is legally permissible. The element of “subject matter upon which the contract can operate” is clearly met in this case as the purchase of a vehicle is clearly permitted in the state. In summary, Mr. Paul Mason and Chardonnay Mason have been able to establish that only two of the four elements necessary for a valid contract in the state of Georgia was established in this case. As a result, the court rules that no contract exists between the Mason’s and R&G …show more content…
R&G makes the claim that no court should have jurisdiction in this case, and that this matter should be handled by an arbitrator as stipulated in the Retail Buyers Order agreement. They contend that the Retail Buyers Order agreement clearly states the following, “Buyer and Dealer agree that all claims, demands, disputes, and controversies of every kind or nature that may arise between them concerning any of the negotiations leading to the sale of the vehicle, the terms and provisions of the sale, the performance or condition of the vehicle, or any other aspects of the vehicles and its sale should be settled by binding