Based on my knowledge of business law, Jim and Laura did not buy the car. Essentially because for a car to be sold there has to be a form of agreement know as a legal contract that links the dealership to both Laura and Jim. A legal contract by definition is a voluntary arrangement between two or more people and is enforced by law (McKendrick, 2014) . The only contract that the two parties may have designed is one that required the dealership to hold the car for a day, while Laura and Jim Paid a refundable a hundred dollars. As defined by business law, there are specific elements that confirm an agreement as a contract. The elements include an offer, acceptance, legal objective, consideration and content parties. Going forward I will use these elements to validate my argument that is the car was not in any way sold. It was to be legally held for a day as per the contract.
To begin with, the main element of a contract is the fact that an offer has to be made. It is defined in business law as an agreement on the price, quality or quantity of the product. The parties involved are willingly and comfortably in agreement (Friedman, 2011) . In this case, there was no offer for the sale of the car. Instead, the offer that existed was refundable a hundred dollars. This sum was specifically meant for holding the car for a day. This confirms that the dealership and the buyers had not confirmed or agreed on the offer of the car. The lack of this fundamental element confirms the inexistence of a contract in the first place. And therefore, confirming the fact that the two did not buy the car.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Another key factor in the formation of a contract is the element of acceptance. Acceptance is a verbal or written confirmation that the offer is accepted unambiguously by both the parties. It is normally in support of the offer as a form of agreement to the terms of the deal as dictated by both the parties within the contract. As in the case of Laura and Jim, there was a form of verbal agreement. This agreement required the dealership to keep the car for a day, while the buyers produced a refundable fee. This agreement is confirmed when the salesperson accepts the refundable fee, and make it certain to the buyers the refundable nature of the transaction. This confirms that the two parties agreed, despite the lack there of a sign documentation that may further be used as a proof of agreement. On the other hand, there is neither an agreement on the sale of the car nor an agreement that confirms the fee paid as a deposit on the car. This further confirms the illegitimacy of the dealers claim to have sold Jim and Laura the car.
Also, another aspect that defines a contract is the element of the legal objective. This element is defined by the laws and regulations of a country, if an activity is not acceptable by that law of the land, then no contact cannot be formulated regarding the activity (Friedman, 2011) . For instance, changing the terms of an agreement in the as per business laws is ethically unacceptable and is therefore considered an unlawful practice. In this case, the dealership is claiming there was an offer that the refundable fee paid was a deposit on the car. Also, it assumes that there was an agreement that the two had bought the automobile by paying a deposit. While the real agreement was that the car to be held for a day is considered an ethical business practice and consequently illegal. For this reason, Jim and Laura have the legal objective to file for a bridge of contract on the grounds that, their contract was for the car to be held for a day and them paying a refundable fee of a hundred dollars. And what they are presented with is a different agreement altogether.
To further prove the inexistence of a contract between the two parties, is the element of mutual obligation. This is defined as the willingness of both the parties to give or to accept a particular offer at presented terms and conditions without prejudice (Friedman, 2011) . With respect to sales, this means that the buyer is willing, able and has accepted the offer at the presented conditions as presented by the seller. On the other hand, the seller is also willing to offer the product or service at the price and conditions for which the buyer has accepted. From this case, the dealership was willing to sell the car at a non-disclosed price, while Jim and Laura were not decided on whether to buy the car at the given time. This is clearly demonstrated when instead of purchasing the car the two potential buyers hold it for a day as they decide to ponder on the deal the dealership was offering. This a clear lack of mutual obligation, and therefore no contract can be formulated when the parties are not on the same page.
Consideration is always an essential element of a valid contract especially when the contract involves some credit implications and has to be backed up by a promise. Consideration is the current value of an element negotiated in reward of a promise (McKendrick, 2014) . In other words, it is the compromises that one may receive or give when an agreement is based on later payment. In this case, there is no consideration for the car. Considering that the automobile was to be paid for in installments, there should have been a form of consideration by the dealership. In conclusion, all these mentioned elements were not presented when Jim and Laura visited the dealership, and hence, there was no legal contract that confirms that they had purchased the automobile. Consequently, the two have the rights to a file a bridge of contract case against the dealership. They did not honor their side of the deal of holding the car for a day. Instead, they formulated a different form of agreement.
References
Friedman, L. M. (2011). Contract law in America: a social and economic case study. Califonia: Quid Pro Books.
McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. UK: Oxford University Press.
