Jones v. Baran Brief

Jones v. Baran Brief - did not have Jones argues that a...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Jones v. The Baran Company (p423) Issue Did the Baran Company breach its contract with Jones? Did the contract with Jones and Baran fall under Statute of Frauds? Rule Contract - 1)Offer 2)acceptance 3)consideration Statute of Frauds - 1)Sale of Goods for $500 or more UCC Alternative means of Satisfying Sale of Goods contract - 1)Confirmatory memorandum between merchants 2)part payment or part delivery 3)admission in pleading or court 4)specially manufactured goods. Quasi-Contract - 1)Benefit conferred 2)knowingly accepted and 3)retains will be unjust Application The Baran Company argues no contract existed with Jones because it falls under the Statue of Frauds where the item sold was over $500 and needed a written contract that Jones and Baran
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: did not have. Jones argues that a contract did exist, because he signed an entitlement form additional terms and conditions of order agreement for the Mercedes and send a $50,000 deposit to the dealership. The dealership retained the deposit for 1.5 years without returning or rejecting the pre-payment for the contract. Jones argues the contract was breached because they agreed for a MSRP price with the agent of the dealership, then employee of the dealer but they now want to charge more to keep the same promise from the contract. Conclusion Yes Baran did breach the contract with Jones, because the elements of statue of frauds were not met and a proper contract was formed with Jones....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online