The Masons` New Car

TheMasons’ New Car

TheMasons’ New Car

Thelaw of contract governs business practices and ensures fairness inbusiness agreements. This paper contains the analysis of a scenarioin which the plaintiff, Paul Mason and Chardonnay Mason exchangedtheir old car with a new one by signing blank contract forms. Theanalysis will focus on the determination of whether there existed alegally enforceable contract, the court should dismiss the case, orwhether R&ampG committed the tort of conversion by the selling theMason’s old car.

Dismissalof the case

Thecourt should continue hearing the case since there are no sufficientfacts to warrant its dismissal. From the scenario, the court can onlydismiss the case if there is an opportunity for the two parties(Masons and R&ampG) to use the arbitration procedure outlined in theRetail Buyer’s Order. However, it is evident that the arbitrationprocedure was not disclosed to Masons at the time of signing theagreement. This is confirmed by the fact that Masons signed blankforms, including the retail installment sales, Odometer DisclosureForm, and Retail Buyer’s Order. Therefore, the claim made by R&ampGthat Masons should have resolved the issue through arbitrationinstead of seeking the court’s intervention is baseless because thetwo parties had not agreed in the same sense that they would resolvethe aftermath issues through a specific strategy.

Inaddition, the request made by R&ampG to dismiss the case filed byMasons does not meet the legal criteria that courts of law use todismiss cases. Some of the factors considered when dismissing thecase include the lack of substantial evidence (Lectric Law Library,2015). However, Masons managed the make bring sufficient evidence byproving that the contract forms were not completed by the time theywere signed and R&ampG does not refuse this evidence, but goes forother excuses, including the subsequent actions that are supposed toindicate the Mason’s intention to make the contract. This meansthat the plaintiff, Masons, has sufficient evidence to sustain thecase in a competent court of law.

Theexistence of a contract

Fromthe legal point of view, there was no a legally enforceable contactbetween Masons and R&ampG. This argument is based on the lack ofconsistency with the one out of four basic elements of a legallyenforceable contract in the agreement between Masons and R&ampG. Theagreement lacked mutuality of the “agreement in one sense”. Theelement of mutuality requires that the parties to a given contractshould comprehend and agree to the provisions or terms of a givencontract (Judicial Education Center, 2015).

Fromthe case, Mason and the wife were requested to sign blank forms whereHector Dosales, R&ampG’s salesperson would fill the content of theforms the following day. This means that Masons did not know what theterms or the content of the contract would be since Dosales was atliberty to add any term that would suit the company’s interest. Thelack of mutual understanding of the terms of the contract is furtherconfirmed by the incident in which Mason asks about the terms of thecontract and Hector responds by telling him not to worry. Thisindicates that there were no terms of agreement, which implies thatthe basis of mutual agreement did not exist.

Moreover,Chardonnay did not sign the Retail Buyer’s Order, which can becited in court as lack of agreement between the two parties. Althoughthe signature is not necessarily required to be witnessed, it servesas an indication of acceptance of the terms of a given contract(Lectric Law Library, 2015). Therefore, there was no legally bindingagreement since there was no mutuality and appropriate acceptancefrom the two parties.

Tortof conversion

Thefacts presented in the scenario indicate that R&ampG committed thetort of conversion. A conversion claim is based on four key factors.First, it should be proven that the plaintiff owned the property whenthe interference occurred (Gallagher, Cooney, Blackmon, 2011).Although Masons were given a new car when they gave their old one toR&ampG, there was no evidence that they had surrendered the right ofownership of their old car. Secondly, it should be proven that thedefendant interfered with plaintiff’s property intentionally. Thedecision made by R&ampG to dispose the old car at a less than theexpected price as a conscious decision. Third, it should be proventhat the interference denied the plaintiff the right to use of ownthe property. Masons could no longer use their old car since it hadalready been sold and returning the new car as requested by R&ampGwas leave them without any car. Lastly, it must be proven that theinterference resulted in some damage to the plaintiff (Gallagher,Cooney, Blackmon, 2011). From the scenario, the old car was disposedat $ 800 instead of the projected amount of $ 2,800. These factsconfirm that R&ampM committed the tort of conversion.

Inconclusion, the law of contract has the basic elements that determineif a given contract can be legally enforced or not. In the presentcase, the lack of specific terms to the contract renders theagreement irrelevant. This is because the lack of terms indicatesthat the parties had no grounds to reach a mutual agreement.

References

Gallagher,P., Cooney, J., Blackmon, J. (2011). Courtof Appeal of Ohio: Eight appellate district county of Cuyahoga.Cleveland, OH: Levin &amp Associates.

JudicialEducation Center (2015). Elementsof a contract: When does a contract exist?Albuquerque, NM: The University of New Mexico.

LectricLaw Library (2015). Howthe contract is formed.Carson City, NV: Lectric Law Library.