Frogsy said:
Hi Liable-
This is from a pet store.. We bought a wonderful cat whom we love very dearly about 2 months ago, and he has developed a fatal disease and will have to be euthanized at only 6 months of age. Please also keep in mind that this particular pet store also told us he was up to date on his shots, which he was not... and he had to start his whole shot regimen again, weakening his immune system.
Here is the contract, in full:
"The customer has 72 hours to take the animal to the veternarian of their choosing. If the animal is found to have abnormal ailments (other than intestinal worms or fleas), the animal may be brought back to the Pet Source for a refund of the full purchase price. The Pet source is not responsible for any incurred veteranian bills.
Ther are no refunds on animal returned for anyother reason than medical.
ABSOLUTELY NO REFUNDS after 72 hours.
I have read and understand the above stated guarantee."
Errors I have found: "Veterinarian" spelled incorrectly twice, in 2 different ways; "Source" in the last line of the first paragraph should be capitalized; "Ther" should be "there"; "animal" should be plural; anyother should be two words.
I know this seems a little anal.. But my boyfriend thought that if a contract was not perfectly written, it was null and void. We love this cat with all our hearts; it's not about the money (although we will have racked up nearly $650 in vet bills after all is said and done)...We just can't let him go without trying to somehow make those responsible pay (It is a long and complicated story). We just know they will keep coming back to the fact that we signed a contract, and if this contract could in fact be considered void.
Thank you for your help.
My response:
Well, your boyfriend and you have good intentions, but in this case, and only based upon what you've written in your post, the grammar and misspelled words are not enough to void the contract - - or to even consider it vague, ambiguous or unintelligible.
You see, in contract law, spelling and grammar are important; but, the real test is "intent" and "meaning" of the parties. In this instance, and beyond the inherent problems, the intent and meaning are quite clear, and despite what you might think now, at the time of signing, there was a "meeting of the minds".
I suspect that you'd like to "void" the contract in order to obtain your money back for the cat, and your ensuing Vet expenses. Sorry, no can do. These types of mistakes are not fatal.
The bottom line is that the cat's problems could have been detected without great expense, and return of, and refund for, the cat would have been feasable and possible. Beyond your own well-intentioned, humanistic good nature, there was no contractual reason or authorization for you to have expended such vast sums of money. While your choice was a noble one, it is not compensable.
Oh, and by the by, there's no such thing as "the perfect contract".
I wish you well.
IAAL
