A contract refers to an agreement arrived at with the aid of two or greater men and women which can be enforced by using the law. This legally binding settlement exists to defend the events worried from every other need to one of them fail to the honor the duties of the contract. In the case of Jim and Laura, the salesman is in clear violation of their verbal dedication and prison motion can be taken in opposition to him.
Elements of a Contract Present
Though Jim and Laura signed no documents, they had been certain verbally via Stan the $100 cost should be refunded and that can be viewed a verbal contract. This settlement can be enforced in a court docket of regulation due to the fact it consists of all the necessary elements of a contract. The first element present is an offer by the salesman and acceptance by the customers (McKendrick, 2014). The salesman, in this case, offers to hold the couple’s car of choice for a refundable fee of $100, the couple then accepts the offer and hands over the money to Stan.
Another contractual element is that both parties are adults of sound mind involved in a standard trade contract. Stan in his capacity as a salesman has adequate authority to commit the car dealership to a contractual obligation. The salesman also has the necessary expertise to make a call like the one he made in declaring the fee refundable. The verbal agreement, thus between the parties was legal by nature since they were entering an arrangement in which the object is legal (MacMillan & Stone, 2004). Jim and Laura`s negotiations with the car salesman do not break any state or federal laws since it involves the potential sale of a legitimate good. The fee paid by the couple is a legal requirement by the dealership for them to hold a car for a prospective buyer within a specified period and not a bribe.
The agreement between the salesman and the couple can be regarded as a contract because there is certainty of meaning as to whether the fee charged is refundable. Though the salesman does not furnish Jim and Laura with a receipt, he assures them verbally that the fee is indeed refundable. It is with this certainty in mind that the couple proceeded to give money to Stan knowing that if they changed their minds later on, they would get their money back. Had Stan said that the payment was not refundable Jim and Laura would have probably chosen to think about their purchase without paying anything. Stan is therefore guilty of breaking a contractual agreement with the couple.
The argument that the fee charged by the salesperson was part of the purchase fee of the car is untrue since it was intended to act as a refundable deposit for the vehicle. The refundable deposit was only meant to secure the car for a day as Jim and Laura decided whether to proceed with the purchase. If the couple chose to continue with the purchase of the vehicle, the fee would have been automatically covered part of the cost of purchasing the car. If the couple declined to buy the car, which they did, then the fee would be refunded as per the agreement.
Conclusion
Jim and Laura can successfully sue the car dealership even in the absence of the receipt showing payment of the $100 fee to the salesman. This is because the salesman assured them that the charge was refundable if the purchase does not take place. The assurance given is legally binding and can be used in a court in favor of Jim and Laura.
References
McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).
MacMillan, C., & Stone, R. (2004). Elements of the law of contract. University of London, The External Programme.
