M2 A1 Bus212
Assignment 1: What about the Contract?
There was a valid contract formed between Pierre’s and Maynard because an agreement was made that had an offer of a contract and an acceptance of the offer (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers,& Langvardt, 2012). For a contract to be valid it must contain four parts. In this case the first part of the agreement was made between the two parties when Pierre’s offered Maynard a 1979 Mustang at the price of $4000, a $1000 discount, if he purchased the car that day. Secondly, the consideration was also made by Maynard because he agreed to purchase the car that very day. Thirdly, Maynard was also legally competent and of age when he went into agreement with Pierre’s. The fourth and final part of the contract was made when Maynard signed the binding legal contract provided by Pierre’s. Since the contract was formed Maynard does not have any arguments to have his money refunded because the contract stated the car is being purchased with the clause of “As-Is” which means that no matter what he thought the condition of the car was he was purchasing it without any arguments that may or may not have affected his signing of the contract. Since the clause was part of the agreement Maynard will not be able to get his money back. With respect to the Uniform Commercial Code, or UCC because Maynard purchased goods with the “as-is” clause, it implies there are no implied warranties and the car is purchased with all the parts it includes (“U.C.C. - ARTICLE 2”, 2003). If Maynard had test drove the Mustang prior to signing he would have realized the breaks were not in the best condition and he could have possibly had a case against Pierre’s because they stated that "the engine and brakes are in tip-top shape" when this was hardly the case. Also Maynard should have looked up what the value of the Mustang was to see if he was getting a good deal and inspected the vehicle a little better rather than rushing into the sale. As far as the behaviors of
There was a valid contract formed between Pierre’s and Maynard because an agreement was made that had an offer of a contract and an acceptance of the offer (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers,& Langvardt, 2012). For a contract to be valid it must contain four parts. In this case the first part of the agreement was made between the two parties when Pierre’s offered Maynard a 1979 Mustang at the price of $4000, a $1000 discount, if he purchased the car that day. Secondly, the consideration was also made by Maynard because he agreed to purchase the car that very day. Thirdly, Maynard was also legally competent and of age when he went into agreement with Pierre’s. The fourth and final part of the contract was made when Maynard signed the binding legal contract provided by Pierre’s. Since the contract was formed Maynard does not have any arguments to have his money refunded because the contract stated the car is being purchased with the clause of “As-Is” which means that no matter what he thought the condition of the car was he was purchasing it without any arguments that may or may not have affected his signing of the contract. Since the clause was part of the agreement Maynard will not be able to get his money back. With respect to the Uniform Commercial Code, or UCC because Maynard purchased goods with the “as-is” clause, it implies there are no implied warranties and the car is purchased with all the parts it includes (“U.C.C. - ARTICLE 2”, 2003). If Maynard had test drove the Mustang prior to signing he would have realized the breaks were not in the best condition and he could have possibly had a case against Pierre’s because they stated that "the engine and brakes are in tip-top shape" when this was hardly the case. Also Maynard should have looked up what the value of the Mustang was to see if he was getting a good deal and inspected the vehicle a little better rather than rushing into the sale. As far as the behaviors of
References: Mallor, Jane, Barnes, James, Bowers, Thomas, Langvardt, Arlen. (2012). Business Law.15th Edition.McGraw-Hill Learning Solutions.VitalBook file. Argosy University. U.C.C. - ARTICLE 2 - SALES (2003 Revision - WITHDRAWN). (2003). Retrieved November 9, 2014, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2