Theoretical Question About Purchasing an Item

[Crazed98]

NJ


This question is purely theoretical. Jane goes into an antique store and decides to purchase an old oak table for Mike. They settle on $1,000 for the table but Jane says she can't take it right now and she will come back with a truck in two days to take it. She gives him a check for $1,000 then leaves.

Right after another customer comes in and looks at the table examining it and offers to buy it. Mike tells the customer it has already been sold. The customer then tells Mike he has to have it and he will give him $5,000,000 for the table because it was the table that the US Constitution was written on.

Jane comes in two days later to pick up the table Mike apologizes and says he can no longer sell her the table and hands her the check back with a coupon for 10% off anything else in the store. She refuses the check and the coupon and demands the table that she already purchased. Mike then offers her $5,000,000 so that he can keep the table. She refuses once again and demands that Mike give her the table.

They then both contact their lawyers.

What would the outcome of this situation be like? Once Mike took the check was he obligated to give Jane the table? Can he retract on it since he didn't know the true value? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[ecmst12]

That is a ridiculous situation. But absent a bonafide contract, the shop owner is not obligated to sell the table to the first guy for any reason.

 

[Tayla]

THEORETICALLY?? Here on a legitimate Legal advice sight?

Okay to answer- A Bill of Sale would have needed to transpire. Buyer would then have rights to item. Seller could RE-OFFER to buy it back. Buyer is not obligated to take the offer.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

A Bill of Sale would have needed to transpire.

I keep forgetting about the statute of frauds.

 

[Crazed98]

Thank you for the answers. Would Mike the seller have any recourse if an actual receipt of the sale was presented?

 

[tranquility]

What's your outline so far? If you give a good attempt at the issues, I might help. I don't have the same reticence to help those who genuinely try at their homework as many others here do.

 

[Crazed98]

What's your outline so far? If you give a good attempt at the issues, I might help. I don't have the same reticence to help those who genuinely try at their homework as many others here do.

It's not homework it was brought up in a class and was just interested in the subject. I had tried looking up some case law but could not find much:

Milner v Colonial Trust Co. Where there was no bill of sale for a horse that was supposedly given as a gift.

The bill of sale is obviously there to protect the buyer. But is there anything to protect the seller if there was a mistake with the transaction? As I said before any help would be appreciated I know some of you guys have a wealth of knowledge on the subject.

 

[tranquility]

There's not really an answer. If on a test, this would be an example of what is known as a "racehorse". You start the essay and then try to cram in as many issues as you can. Each issue, except for maybe one or two, wouldn't deserve much discussion.

Was there a contract? You'd talk both about common law and the UCC. You'd speak of offer, acceptance and consideration. You'd probably conclude there was a contract, but might argue their wasn't because of a mistake of fact. (Throw in "Pearless" 1 and 2 to show you read the cases if you think you could finish in time.) Then you'd discuss if the UCC applied and if Mike was a merchant. (You'd conclude it does and he was.)

You would then move to to the statue of frauds, goods over $500, and discuss common law and UCC there. (Everything will have the two paths.) The SOF would apply, but would the evidence of the check take the sale out of the statute. This may be a more indepth discussion although you don't have a lot of facts to apply. I'd conclude yes, but the conclusion on the essay wouldn't really matter.

You would then go to remedies with a short detour to efficent breach. Recission, damages, reformation and the like. Then you get to the only real thinkum portion, that having to do with specific performance. Can Jane demand the table? I'm not really sure as, to her, it was a table and not something that money damages wouldn't cover--even though, in reality, the table was unique. Can you get specific performance if the Plaintiff doesn't know the item is unique?

Each step has a discussion and you move on to the next with an arguendo the last was successful--even if you concluded it was not. The point is not that there is an answer, but that you understood all the questions.

(The above is just through a memory of the facts from the first reading. I'm sure I could tease out a couple more issues if I tried--maybe even a major one. I'd probably conclude there was a contract, SOF was removed, Mary can get specific performance, but you really cannot guess the reality without getting up to your elbows in the facts.)

 

[jhlwstdnt]

Here is the quick "issue" outline I saw after reading it:

I. FORMATION
A. Applicable Law
1. UCC
B. Mutual Assent
1. Offer
2. Acceptance
C. Consideration
D. Defenses to Formation
1. Mistake
a. Unilateral Mistake
2. SOF
II. PERFORMANCE
A. Breach (material)
III. REMEDIES
A. Damages
1. Expectation (maybe)
a. Consequential
B. Injunction
1. Specific Performance
2. Rescission (by D)

 

[Crazed98]

Wow, thanks a lot tranq that will give me plenty to chew on. Thanks for the outline too jhlwstdnt.