As is normally the case, common laws and laws of contracts are concerned with the key elements of laws and guidelines which affect various parties, individuals, organizations, and businesses. Common laws are more often than not, concentrated in the contractual and tortious liability cases.
By John and Bob engaging on the details of the car, Aston Martin, it is clear that the two parties have already entered into a legal intention so as to make the contract between them, which is made via mail, a valid one. When Bob fails to deliver the Aston Martin car, he is deemed to have breached the contract. This is because, the contract is a valid one and binds both the parties together and therefore, Bob must do his duties as required by law in the contract they so stated.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, John also reserves the right to prove that Bob capitalized on his weakness or the state of mind since he only contacted him through the phone, to violate the contact. Bob must do a background check and establish the real price of the car and its condition and be able to identify the extraordinary price of the car as being a mistake. The contract between John and Bob can also be argued to be an avoidable contract since the buyer would choose to opt out of the deal but he chose otherwise. So the contract can still be argued to be valid in this respect. It, therefore, means that Bob can still claim the deal in his favor.
There is an aspect of unconscionability where contracts are supposed to be enforced and provided so as to ensure that they terms in it are followed to the latter. In this case, the contract is enforced so as to make sure that not only a single party is favored when the decision is made on the contract but both are. By Bob making a phone call to John to reverse his initial price on the vehicle as previously agreed, John would argue that he did not accept John’s proposal and thus, the first agreement still held. By way of phone conversations, no legally binding agreement was met and therefore the contract considered null and void.
The reason as to why John would suffer the consequences of a legal suite is that before his engagement in this contract, he could as well have terminated the contract letter. It was not too late for him to terminate it if he was not pleased with what was offered at the table. As per unilateral mistake, the contract becomes void regardless of whether or not the contract was a fundamental one. This, therefore, means that the contract between John and Bob is void since John must have known the laws surrounding agreements.
The other reason as to why the seller of the car reserves the right to win the case is that they had engaged themselves in a consensus ad idem. This means that the two had an initial agreement that met their minds in full and had reached a final agreement. This agreement can then be described as being consensual in nature. It is not in doubt that the two gentlemen had entered into an agreement at the same time, and sense and Bob already thought that he had finalized the deal for the total of $160,000. From the above arguments and in the overall sense, John is legally wrong and should, therefore, stick to the initial agreement.
