First Thread Discussion: Ashay Samuels
The Sedmak’s ordered a rare, expensive commemorative Chevy they made an oral agreement with the owners of Charlie’s but when they went to pay for the car, they were told that because of the great demand for the limited edition, it was going to be auctioned to the highest bidder. He also notified them that they could bid on the car, but they did not submit a bid, claiming that there was never a contract. The Sedmak’s then sued the dealership for specific performance. Suing for Specific performance means seller, or a buyer has the right to sue the other party, in asking that the court requires them to comply with the terms of the sales contract. The Sedmak’s would win this case of specific performance simply because of the rarity of this car and because the manager had already agreed to sell the car to the Sedmak’s for a specific price. Specific performance gave the Sedmak’s leverage to negotiating a settlement because of the burden that was placed on them by the manager when he pulled out of their verbal agreement. It was up to the Sedmak’s to decide whether they had wanted the car or not in this case they did. Even if object is not “one of a kind,” specific performance can still be awarded under the UCC if it is sufficiently difficult for buyer to “cover.” In this case, it would be hard to find the same car with the same mileage and in the same condition.
Second Thread Discussion: Debra Caughan
The fact that Charlie was seeking to auction the car in question, a limited edition Corvette Pacer car that had options installed by the Sedmaks specifications, this car was considered unique. When Charlie breached the contract after receiving a 500 dollar down payment and was seeking to auction the car, he stated the down payment was a mere auction place holder. After supplying the pace car with Sedmak’s options the defendant argued that specific performance was not valid in this case The defense stating that Specific Performance was not justified was relying on gross manipulation of the law in my opinion. Specific Performance is justified when there is no adequate remedy at law and the plaintiff is entitled to the right and it is considered a unique item. The car was a limited edition of 6,ooo cars made as Pace cars for the Indianapolis 500. The plaintiff cannot just go to the open market and purchase a car with the same mileage, looks, options and limited edition distinction. One interesting test used by the courts was to ask if the dealership has these cars available twice a year. This availability did not occur at that pace. On the contrary, only one pace car was permissible to the dealer and even fewer had the plaintiff's options. The plaintiff may never be able to buy a car like this at all ever again. If Sedmak did find a car like this one he would be incurring considerable trouble, loss, delay and at an expense that would be undeterminable and with much undue stress. Upon these grounds Specific Performance is the Plaintiff's right. The obvious manipulation of the argument against the use of Specific Performance by the defense was evident in the counsel’s use of Boeving vs.Vandor which was based on the purchase of a car during war time when there was a wartime shortage of cars and not pertaining in anyway to an heirloom, one of a kind or limited edition vehicle. This case was not to be considered applicable by the court to affect the plaintiff's right to not acquire Specific Performance. This common thread of manipulation is seen in two other lines of argumentation in this case. These arguments did not adhere to even the basics of UCC and Statute of Fraud laws just as the defense’s arguments did not adhere to basic laws of Specific Performance. Important Consideration of the following defense argument is imperative because if there is no contract or valid contract, then there is no right for Specific Performance to be granted.
1.Adding the options to the 15,000 dollar sticker price of the car rendered the parties with no specific price that was agreed upon. With no specific price agreed upon, defense argues there is no enforceable contract. Offer and acceptance for sale and lease contracts under the UCC provides tolerance to Open terms. One of the Open terms is open pricing , an indefinite price does not invalidate a contract.
2.The defendant continues again on manipulative lines arguing if a contract is proven it is not enforceable due to The Statute of Frauds. They argued partial payment defense that pertained partial payment for quantities of goods and not a single unit, one car, that removed this contract from the Statute of Frauds which is to protect enforcement of promises never made not for the repudiation of goods by contractors.
Plaintiff wins Specific Performance as justified. In my estimation defense counsel used weak and non applicable precedents during the entire case ignoring the basic reasonable considerations concerning Specific Performance and the additional two basic points of law. The car was ordered delivered to the plaintiff.
Respond to these two threaded discussion. Each threaded discussions in a paragraph. Read and respond to at least two other students' posts. If differences of opinion occur, debate the issues professionally and provide examples to support your opinions.
Please write in basic English as I am an international students as my English is my third language.