Misre V. Amy Tan Case 4

Question 1 In this case, A is trying to sell his 1970 MG for $12,000. K offers $10,000 and realizes there is a problem with the vehicle. A tells K that he appreciates the offer but others are coming to see the car as well, at this point he also says that he is going to get the problem with the car fixed and he will contact K back. K never agreed to anything here. He gives his offer and it was not accepted at the time by A. “To be valid and therefore legally binding, 5 conditions must be met. First there must be the mutual consent of both parties. No one can be held to a promise involuntarily made.” This means that K should not be held accountable for this situation. A only wanted K’s offer when he had no one else to buy the car for his original asking price. Without the 6
Brau’ for $3,500. B agreed to purchase ‘provided it was the original’. Neither A or B knew that there were two figures both signed by the artist, B thought he was getting the large version when A was selling the small. B ends up getting very upset over the item that he thought was going to be something else but A denies his grounds that it was misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is when one of the parties to contract such as this one on ebay made a wrong statement about material and in this case the opposite party accepted into the contract thinking it was something else. This could also be called impeachment of a contract. I would consider B innocent to misrepresentation because he was not aware that there were two objects out there that were different sizes. It also says in the case that only the large item worth $8,000 was the first produced by Brau but it says that the second smaller item was a later version, never states that it was produced by the artist. So in this case, B purchases the item stating ‘provided it was the original.’ To me this item was not the original but it was a later created