Question

In your discussion, you should apply the facts of the specific case to the law that appropriately addresses this situation. You will get credit for points correctly made and communicated in a concise and literate manner. Credit will be lost for incorrect statements, omissions, and discussion that is not relevant to the specific case or is unnecessarily repetitive.

1. One Monday Andy drove Ben and Cal home after class. They talked about the class, the weather, the features of Andy’s car, and Cal invited them to a party on his 18th birthday in two weeks. Ben said he was looking for a car like this, and Andy offered to sell this one to him for $3,000. Ben said he was very interested, but he would need to see if he could get an auto loan for that amount. He asked if he could have until Wednesday to let Andy know if he could buy the car, and Andy said yes. After Andy dropped Ben off at his house, Cal told Andy that he, too, was interesting in buying Any’s car, and he would like to accept Andy’s offer to sell the car for $3,000. In fact, if they could go by the bank now, Cal would get a cashier’s check and complete the transaction today. Andy agreed, and after going to the bank, they drove to Andy’s house and exchanged the check for the title, and Cal drove away in his newly purchased car. Feeling good, Cal stopped at the Hilltop Restaurant to get some food. When he came out of the restaurant, he saw that the car had plunged over the hill. He called a wrecker to tow the car and directed that the car be taken to Andy’s house. At Andy’s house, Cal told Andy that he had changed his mind and that he did not want the car after all. He put the title on Andy’s table and asked for his money back. Andy refused. Cal later sued Andy. In the meantime, Ben, who did not know about the car accident, was approved for the bank loan the next morning, so he called Andy to accept Andy’s offer to sell the car to Ben. Andy told Ben that the car was no longer for sale. Ben sued Andy.

2. Delia, a California resident, entered into a contract on March 2 with Franco in New York for the purchase of an original Franco oil painting for $5,000. Part of the written agreement was for Franco to deliver the painting to the New York home of Delia’s mother, Eva, as a birthday gift from Delia to her mother. On March 5, Franco unexpected died. When the painting was not delivered, Eva went to Franco’s studio to get the painting, but Franco’s widow, Gail, said that the painting was no longer for sale. Eva sued Gail for the painting.

Answer 1

1. The decision of sueing Andy by both Ben and Cal is wrong as per law. Firstly, Andy owned the car.He did not sign any agreement with Ben as it was a casual talk that whether Ben can buy it or not. Therefore in absence of any legal or contract agreement Ben cannot sue Andy. Further Cal buought car from Andy and they have already exchanged the check for title and Cal has become legal owner of the car. Now after getting an accident he cannot refuse to own the car. Car belongs to Cal now and he cannot sue Andy for not taking the car back as per law.

2. Since Delia and Franco have entered an agreement therefore it has become a legal binding. After Franco, his widow Gail is seeing after the paintings and she told that the painting is not for sale but the painting have already been sold by her dead husband. In presence of agreement Gail cannot refuse to give painting as per law. Therefore the decision of Delia to sue Gail is right.