Business Law - Final Unit Touchstone

.docx

School

Ashworth College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

MB655

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CaptainKnowledgeGoat40

McCants Robert McCants III (Rya Amour) Business Law: Touchstone Business Law November 22, 2023

McCants Did Jim and Laura buy a car? For a contract to possess legal enforceability, it must satisfy several essential elements. All the contractual elements, including the parties involved, reciprocal obligations, conditions for performance, execution, acceptance, consideration, and shared understanding, retain their legal enforceability and applicability. The pivotal aspect of a contract occurs during the finalization of the agreement. In this particular instance, the critical juncture would occur during the definitive transaction of the blue vehicle, which garnered favor from both Laura and Jim. Nevertheless, following careful deliberation of their strong inclination to allocate a maximum of $400.00 per month, the two parties reached a consensus. The initial assessment of the car acquisition does not meet expectations. For a contract to be valid, it is imperative that there exists a well-defined and mutually agreed-upon understanding between the parties involved regarding the exchange of property. Mutual consent from both parties is required in order to establish the terms, and it is imperative that the agreement be devoid of any undisclosed provisions. In this particular instance, the salesman asserts that the deposit is subject to refund and subsequently alters his demeanor upon the customers' expression of a negative inclination towards the car purchase. The seller fulfills their responsibility by initiating communication with customers in order to finalize the transaction. In this particular case, as that communication did not occur, the seller perceives the initial deposit as a binding commitment to a contractual agreement. However, this is not the case, as the two parties did not enter into any binding agreements. It is widely acknowledged that both parties possess the ability to unilaterally terminate the agreement due to the absence of any binding obligations between them. Both parties expressed that the amount of $100.00 served as a mere deposit. Nevertheless, the seller failed to disclose to the potential buyers that the deposit would constitute an integral component of the purchase agreement. According to Blum (2007), a contract must adhere to legal requirements in order to establish a binding agreement between two or more parties. In the event that there are no legally binding documents, such as receipts, Laura and Jim possess the entitlement to exercise a different option from their initial decision, thereby necessitating Stan to reimburse them the $100.00 deposit. The contractual agreement between Jim, Laura, and Stan was deficient in terms of establishing the creation of legal relations. The inclusion of this element holds significant importance in commercial transactions, as it serves as a safeguard for both parties in the event of potential legal action arising from non-compliance with statutory requirements. In the given situation, it is evident that there was no legally enforceable agreement, and Stan Salesman's assertion that the $100.00 deposit, which was intended to be a component of said agreement, lacks validity. In the context of a mutual agreement, it is possible for either party to withdraw from the agreement prior to its completion. Stan lacks the legal authority to compel Jim and Laura to purchase the car in the absence of substantiating evidence. The potential buyers initially expressed their willingness to pay a deposit and then monthly installments after the person made the decision to sell the car. However, they subsequently experienced a sense of incapability in fulfilling this financial arrangement. The seller did not establish a legally binding time frame for the duration of the offer. The individual is unable to assert that assuming the role of contacting the buyers subsequently serves

McCants as evidence of their acceptance of the offer. The decision to accept the offer and proceed with the purchase of the car lies with Laura and Jim. By making an additional payment, they indicate their intention to enter into a contractual agreement for the purchase of the vehicle. In this particular scenario, the seller did not submit any formal documentation to acknowledge the acceptance, resulting in the buyer's non-receipt. The act of providing a receipt to the buyers serves as a legally binding indication of an ongoing contract. The terms outlined in the receipt would obligate both Laura and Jim to comply with the stipulated requirements. The absence of providing receipts to the buyers can be interpreted as evidence of deceptive behavior on the part of the seller, as it suggests an intention to hold them accountable for the purchase offer without providing comprehensive information regarding the acceptance of the deposit. The consensus is that the deposit is subject to refund, thereby granting the buyers the prerogative to request a refund due to a change of heart. It is imperative to acknowledge that the condition of partial acceptance does not constitute evidence of a legally binding contract. In this particular instance, the purchaser deviated from the agreed-upon amount of $100.00 by making only a partial payment towards the required initial deposit. By presenting a counteroffer to the seller, the buyer has the option to either accept or reject the original agreement. Therefore, Jim and Laura retain the possibility of abstaining from the purchase of the vehicle as a result of the absence of a legally enforceable or valid agreement. Stating to the purchasers that the deposit constitutes partial payment towards the contractual sum represents a negation of the authentic consent required from the buyers in order to consummate a successful transaction. Stan is exerting pressure on the buyers in order to compel them to enter into a contractual agreement, while the buyers retain their right to seek protection in order to avoid fulfilling their contractual obligations. By asserting his acceptance of this contract, Stan may potentially be held accountable for misrepresenting Jim and Laura. Stan coerces the purchasers into adhering to an incorrect contractual agreement. The individual appropriated their deposit and anticipated that it would serve as a means of legally binding the purchasers to a contractual agreement. This conflicts with the original agreement, which stipulates that the deposit is eligible for a refund. In the absence of prior awareness, it is important to note that the act of paying a deposit serves as an indication of the establishment of a contractual agreement. The purchasers are deemed to be without fault, and they may proceed to engage legal counsel to assist them in navigating the process of rescinding the transaction and seeking recompense from Stan. However, the problem the buyers faced in this summary emphasizes the lack of necessary documentation as substantiating proof. The initial understanding stipulated that the deposit allocated for the purchase of the vehicle was subject to refund. The challenge of verifying the absence of corroborating documentation renders the situation a contest of credibility between the seller and the buyer. Given his financial resources, it is incumbent upon him to either reimburse the purchasers or disregard their stalemate. The potential purchasers may be exposed to the risk of financial loss in this particular scenario, as the deposit lacks a guarantee or collateral that would ensure the possibility of receiving a complete reimbursement.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help