Statute of frauds

  Reginald is selling is a vehicle. He has a classic 1978 Ford Bronco and wants to sell it so he can buy a new electric vehicle. He takes out an ad online and lists the vehicle for $55,000. Jane sees Reginald’s ad for the Bronco and contacts him to look at the car. She takes it to a mechanic that she trusts and the mechanic tells her that the car is in excellent shape for its age and she does not think it will need any immediate repairs. Jane decides to purchase the Bronco and writes a $5500 check to Reginald as a ten percent deposit for the Bronco. The memo section of the check read: "Deposit on purchase of 1978 Ford Bronco owned by Reginald Doe. Sale price $55,000." Reginald initialed the memo section next to this line and took the check out of the checkbook. They agreed that she would return the next day with a cashier’s check for the rest of the money and he would give her the title and keys to the vehicle then. When Jane returned the next day with $49,500 cashier’s check, Reginald said, "Sorry, I feel terrible about this but I sold the Bronco for $70,000 after you left yesterday to a local mechanic. She just called me out of nowhere after you left, made an offer, came by and paid me, and took the car last night. I tore up your check so you won’t have to worry about canceling it.” Jane still has the duplicate copy of the check in her checkbook. The cheapest comparable Bronco Jane can find elsewhere is $85,000. Discuss in detail the following: a. What law applies in this situation (the common law or the UCC)? What is the difference? How is a contract formed anyway? Was a contract formed in this situation? (In answering this part of the question, please demonstrate how each element of contract formation is, or is not, established with these facts) b. What is the statute of frauds? Is the statute of frauds going to hurt Jane's likely arguments under these facts? Why, or why not? c. Does Jane have any argument(s) to make in court against Reginald? For example, could she argue that Reginald breached a contract? What, if anything, could Reginald assert in his defense? Who do you think should prevail in the dispute and why? d. If she prevails, could Jane collect damages from Reginald? If so, what form and/or amount would they be?

Sample Solution

  The law that applies in this situation is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC is a set of laws that govern commercial transactions in the United States. It was created to simplify and standardize commercial law, and to make it easier for businesses to do business across state lines. The common law is a body of law that developed over time through court decisions. It is still used in some areas of law, but the UCC has largely replaced it in the area of commercial transactions. A contract is formed when two parties agree to the terms of a transaction. The elements of contract formation are:
  • Offer: One party makes an offer to the other party.
  • Acceptance: The other party accepts the offer.

Full Answer Section

 
  • Consideration: Each party gives something of value to the other party.
  • Intention to create legal relations: The parties must intend to create a legally binding contract.
In the case of Reginald and Jane, there was an offer, acceptance, and consideration. Reginald offered to sell the Bronco to Jane for $55,000. Jane accepted the offer by writing the $5,500 check. The check was consideration for the contract. Both parties intended to create a legally binding contract. Therefore, a contract was formed between Reginald and Jane. b. Jane has a good chance of winning a lawsuit against Reginald. She has a written contract with Reginald, and she has paid a deposit. Reginald's breach of contract caused Jane to suffer damages, because she had to pay more for a comparable Bronco. Jane can sue Reginald for the difference between the price she paid for the Bronco and the price she would have paid if Reginald had not breached the contract. In this case, the difference is $85,000 - $55,000 = $30,000. Jane can also sue Reginald for her deposit, which was $5,500. In total, Jane can sue Reginald for $30,000 + $5,500 = $35,500. Reginald may try to argue that he was not in breach of contract, because he sold the Bronco to someone else for a higher price. However, this argument is likely to fail. The UCC allows a seller to sell goods to someone else if the seller has a good faith belief that the buyer will not be able to perform the contract. However, in this case, Reginald had no reason to believe that Jane would not be able to perform the contract. Jane had already paid a deposit, and she had a cashier's check for the rest of the money. Therefore, Jane has a good chance of winning a lawsuit against Reginald and recovering the $35,500 she is owed. c. Jane can take Reginald to court to sue for breach of contract. She can file a lawsuit in the small claims court, which is a less expensive and less formal way to sue someone. The small claims court limit in most states is $10,000, so Jane may need to file a lawsuit in the regular court if she is seeking more than $10,000. Jane can also try to negotiate a settlement with Reginald. This would be a faster and cheaper way to resolve the dispute. However, Reginald may not be willing to settle, so Jane may need to file a lawsuit. d. There are a few things Jane can do to protect herself in the future. She should always get a written contract when she is buying or selling goods. The contract should include the terms of the sale, such as the price, the date of the sale, and the terms of payment. She should also make sure that she gets a copy of the contract. Jane should also be careful about who she makes deposits to. She should only make deposits to people who she trusts. If she is not sure whether she can trust someone, she should ask a lawyer for advice.

IS IT YOUR FIRST TIME HERE? WELCOME

USE COUPON "11OFF" AND GET 11% OFF YOUR ORDERS