97%(37)36 out of 37 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 5 pages.
above instances can be traced in the case under discussion between Stan Salesman, Jim and Laura. Stan Salesman went back on this word to return their $100 within 24 hours if Jim and/ or Laura changed their minds on purchasing the car.This case applies to similar cases that are
illegal, where a contract is illegal if it is contrary to the public good. To qualify to be void, a contract has to be contrary to the public good. The case in question was legal and non - void based on this element.Proof That There Was a ContractJim and Laura had a strong interest in buying a car of their choice and that is one of the reasons why they went to the local car dealership to purchase one. The one they already had was starting to have mechanical problem so they needed to buy another one. The contract made between Stan Salesman, Jim and Laura was valid. The validity of the contract is due to the fact that it meets all the elements of a contract. Stan Salesman refused to refund the money back to Jim and Laura although Stan Salesman had stated clearly that the money was refundable. Stan Salesman therefore reneged on the terms of the verbal contract they had agreed upon. The type of contract in question was a verbal one that which is acceptable and is enforceable by the law. In this scenario between Stan Salesman, Jim and Laura, there was a factual element of the validity of a refund. This is because Stan Salesman had told them clearly that the $ 100.00 they gave was a guaranteed refund. His