US DOT hired me - a Mover - for the day but it was a sting

[Zigner]

I am curious as to whether or not a contract was actually formed. I am thinking it could be argued that there was no contract until such time as the OP arrived, saw the job and agreed to do the job for a price that was agreed upon by the customer.

 

[tranquility]

I am curious as to whether or not a contract was actually formed. I am thinking it could be argued that there was no contract until such time as the OP arrived, saw the job and agreed to do the job for a price that was agreed upon by the customer.

That is certainly an issue. I can only analyze the thing from basic principles and there, it seems there was an offer and acceptance in a technical sense.

 

[quincy]

I believe most movers operate in a fashion similar to what I outlined earlier. No contract is signed until delivery. And it has been a lack of a "firm" contract that has been a problem for some consumers and has led to legal issues for some movers in New Jersey, apparently (that, and being unlicensed).

Some nefarious movers provide the one being moved with a low estimate and then, when the move is complete but before possessions are unloaded, the cost demanded for the move is far far greater than the estimate. The movers threaten to withhold the possessions until they are paid.

Here are two links to the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs, to investigations conducted on movers - the first one a press release from 2013, the second one a press release from 2014:

http://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/press/03252013.htm

http://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/press/07242014.htm

A priority in New Jersey sting operations, though, has been to "catch" unlicensed movers, several of which were discovered earlier this year operating without proper licenses.

I think that it easily could be argued that a valid contract does not exist until the delivery is made, the final cost of the move is tabulated, and the consumer agrees to pay. The phone arrangement could be looked at as a "tentative" agreement, based on an estimate of the costs but, with nothing signed or consideration given at that point, I do not see much of a case for reimbursement. If a delivery had been made, I would think otherwise.

Now, if the ABC news crew that greeted knowzero actually filmed the sting that involved knowzero and his movers, and then ABC aired what they filmed, stating or implying something false about knowzero or his moving company, THEN I could see a legal action potentially worth pursuing.

He might want to consult with an attorney for a personal review but, again, I personally see nothing in what he has posted that warrants a lawsuit.

 

[tranquility]

I think that it easily could be argued that a valid contract does not exist until the delivery is made, the final cost of the move is tabulated, and the consumer agrees to pay. The phone arrangement could be looked at as a "tentative" agreement, based on an estimate of the costs but, with nothing signed or consideration given at that point, I do not see much of a case for reimbursement. If a delivery had been made, I would think otherwise.

There is no way moving is a unilateral contract that is payable only upon delivery. That would change who is making the offer. While there may be some NJ rules regarding inspection before loading and the filing of tariffs with the state that could cause problems with the contract it is not a tentative agreement just because the final price is not known as long as the factors in the price are known. Consideration is the promise, not the actual transfer of something of value.

Even in the links supplied regarding bait and switch (Where one price was told before loading and additional things added after.) the press release said:

Based on consumer complaints, the State in its lawsuit alleged that the defendants contracted with consumers for moves estimated at a few hundred dollars but afterwards demanded total payments that were triple, even quadruple, of the agreed-upon price.

I will agree the writer may not have been writing with technical precision. But, the actions taken in those instances hardly make a case there was not a contract before delivery and payment.

 

[You Are Guilty]

This is so far afield that I doubt any small claims judge would entertain the argument for more than a moment, but what about the fact that whoever called OP never actually intended to form a contract? They obviously (at least in hindsight) were just trying to set him up, which, arguably, would negate any possible 'meeting of the minds' since only one half of the parties actually planned on forming a contract and the other never did.

I do feel that OP is entitled to something for his time and trouble, but I am at a loss as to a better theory to base it on.

 

[tranquility]

This is so far afield that I doubt any small claims judge would entertain the argument for more than a moment, but what about the fact that whoever called OP never actually intended to form a contract? They obviously (at least in hindsight) were just trying to set him up, which, arguably, would negate any possible 'meeting of the minds' since only one half of the parties actually planned on forming a contract and the other never did.

I do feel that OP is entitled to something for his time and trouble, but I am at a loss as to a better theory to base it on.

I mentioned this earlier:

Even if we can argue there was no contractual intent on the part of the caller (I'd have to go back to old cases not in my head but believe the key is not what the offeror believed, but what a reasonable person would believe.), we have quasi-contract for the actual harm. (Rather than the profit from the contract.)

Let me see if I can find an old hornbook.
...
Great. It seems "a debate has raged as to whether the assent of the parties should be actual mental assent so that there is a "meeting of the minds" or whether assent should be determined solely from the objective manifestation of intent". Sigh.