ON TIME BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, A+ WORK, ON TIME, NO PLAGARIZING; ON TIME
tutor response
2 hours ago 4
WEEK7RESPONSE.docx
WEEK7RESPONSE.docx
CHESLEY (RESPOND NO MORE THAN 150 WORDS)
Hello Class,
If I were the judge, I would rule in Roger's favor for $5,000. Although Emerson received higher offers, I believe his original commitment to Roger should take priority. Emerson's $4,900 "AS-IS" sign invited potential buyers to negotiate rather than establishing a binding contract. Val offered $5,500 by leaving her business card, but Emerson never saw or accepted it. Making an offer first does not automatically establish a contract. As Lingwall (2022) explains, a valid contract requires an offer and acceptance, among other elements. Roger's situation is different. Applying the six common law contract elements, Roger made an offer of $5,000, which Emerson verbally accepted and confirmed with a handshake. The exchange of money for the vehicle establishes consideration, while their actions demonstrate mutual assent. Nothing suggests either party lacked capacity or that the transaction was not legal (Lingwall, 2022). Joe Don's $8,000 offer introduced a condition precedent because he would only purchase the car if the engine started (Cornell Law School, n.d.). Although Emerson appeared confident about the vehicle's condition, we cannot assume the engine starts. Regardless, Joe Don's higher offer does not override Roger's earlier agreement. From a business perspective, I understand why Emerson would consider more money, but going back on his word raises ethical concerns. Instead, he could have offered Roger $500 to voluntarily release him from their agreement, but Roger would have to consent. Ultimately, Roger should receive the car for $5,000. Once ownership is properly transferred, whether he keeps it or resells it should be his decision.
GAGNON (RESPOND NO MORE THAN 150 WORDS)
Good Morning Class,
It's easy to assume the person with cash in hand wins, but contract law doesn't work that way. To sort out who gets the car, I went through the six elements of a contract from our Week 6 lesson: offer, acceptance, mutuality, consideration, legal competency, and legal object. If any one of them is missing, there's no enforceable contract. After applying them to each buyer, my ruling is that Roger gets the car for $5,000.
First, Emerson's sign wasn't an offer. It said "asking," which tells the reader the price is open to discussion. Offers are judged by objective intent, meaning what a reasonable person would understand from the words, and a reasonable person would see "asking $5,000" as an invitation to negotiate, not a promise to sell to whoever shows up first. Courts treat advertisements the same way. In Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. (1999), the court held that an ad is usually just an invitation for people to make offers.
Val's index card was different, because it was an actual offer. She named a price and left her contact information. The problem is that Emerson never saw it. An offer has to be communicated before it can be accepted (Lingwall, 2022), and Emerson can't agree to something he doesn't know exists. Val left a note, not a deal.
Roger is the only buyer who meets all six elements. He made a definite offer of $5,000 face to face, and Emerson accepted those exact terms. That satisfies the mirror image rule. If Emerson had said "I'll take $5,200," it would have been a counteroffer instead. The handshake and Emerson's "keeping her in the family" comment show mutuality, since both sides clearly understood the deal. The car traded for $5,000 is consideration. Nothing in the facts suggests either party was a minor or impaired, and since we can't assume unstated facts, both have legal competency. Selling a used car is also a legal object.
Some people might say a handshake isn't a real contract, or that Emerson is free to change his mind until Roger pays. Under common law, though, a contract doesn't have to be written or signed to be binding. The handshake itself isn't the contract. It's evidence that both sides agreed. Consideration also doesn't require cash to change hands, because a promise can be a consideration too. Roger promised to pay $5,000 and Emerson promised to sell the car, and that exchange of promises created a binding contract the moment they agreed. Emerson could have walked away before Roger accepted, since an offer can usually be revoked until it's accepted. Once they shook hands, though, it was too late. Paying the money and handing over the keys are just performance of a contract that already exists.
Joe Don's "only if the engine starts" was a conditional offer, because the engine starting was a condition precedent that had to happen before his promise took effect. In the end, it doesn't matter whether the engine starts. Emerson was already bound to Roger, so he had no right to accept another offer, and selling to Val or Joe Don would have been a breach of his contract with Roger.
Roger gets the car for $5,000. If Emerson refused to hand it over, Roger could ask the court for specific performance, which orders the seller to complete the sale instead of just paying damages. Courts usually reserve this remedy for unique items (Lingwall, 2022), and a well-kept classic automobile fits, since Roger couldn't simply buy the same car somewhere else. Val keeps her cash, and Joe Don keeps shopping.
I look forward to reading everyone's rulings!
References
Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
Lingwall, J. (2022). Business law: A risk management approach (2nd ed.). Boise State University. https://boisestate.pressbooks.pub/buslaw2e/
Gen-AI Attribution Statement
I utilized Gemini, a Gen-AI system created by Google, and Claude AI, to complete this assignment. Gemini and Claude AI were employed for the following purposes: proofreading and editing.
WEEK7RESPONSE.docx
CHESLEY (RESPOND NO MORE THAN 150 WORDS)
Hello Class,
If I were the judge, I would rule in Roger's favor for $5,000. Although Emerson received higher offers, I believe his original commitment to Roger should take priority. Emerson's $4,900 "AS-IS" sign invited potential buyers to negotiate rather than establishing a binding contract. Val offered $5,500 by leaving her business card, but Emerson never saw or accepted it. Making an offer first does not automatically establish a contract. As Lingwall (2022) explains, a valid contract requires an offer and acceptance, among other elements. Roger's situation is different. Applying the six common law contract elements, Roger made an offer of $5,000, which Emerson verbally accepted and confirmed with a handshake. The exchange of money for the vehicle establishes consideration, while their actions demonstrate mutual assent. Nothing suggests either party lacked capacity or that the transaction was not legal (Lingwall, 2022). Joe Don's $8,000 offer introduced a condition precedent because he would only purchase the car if the engine started (Cornell Law School, n.d.). Although Emerson appeared confident about the vehicle's condition, we cannot assume the engine starts. Regardless, Joe Don's higher offer does not override Roger's earlier agreement. From a business perspective, I understand why Emerson would consider more money, but going back on his word raises ethical concerns. Instead, he could have offered Roger $500 to voluntarily release him from their agreement, but Roger would have to consent. Ultimately, Roger should receive the car for $5,000. Once ownership is properly transferred, whether he keeps it or resells it should be his decision.
GAGNON (RESPOND NO MORE THAN 150 WORDS)
Good Morning Class,
It's easy to assume the person with cash in hand wins, but contract law doesn't work that way. To sort out who gets the car, I went through the six elements of a contract from our Week 6 lesson: offer, acceptance, mutuality, consideration, legal competency, and legal object. If any one of them is missing, there's no enforceable contract. After applying them to each buyer, my ruling is that Roger gets the car for $5,000.
First, Emerson's sign wasn't an offer. It said "asking," which tells the reader the price is open to discussion. Offers are judged by objective intent, meaning what a reasonable person would understand from the words, and a reasonable person would see "asking $5,000" as an invitation to negotiate, not a promise to sell to whoever shows up first. Courts treat advertisements the same way. In Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. (1999), the court held that an ad is usually just an invitation for people to make offers.
Val's index card was different, because it was an actual offer. She named a price and left her contact information. The problem is that Emerson never saw it. An offer has to be communicated before it can be accepted (Lingwall, 2022), and Emerson can't agree to something he doesn't know exists. Val left a note, not a deal.
Roger is the only buyer who meets all six elements. He made a definite offer of $5,000 face to face, and Emerson accepted those exact terms. That satisfies the mirror image rule. If Emerson had said "I'll take $5,200," it would have been a counteroffer instead. The handshake and Emerson's "keeping her in the family" comment show mutuality, since both sides clearly understood the deal. The car traded for $5,000 is consideration. Nothing in the facts suggests either party was a minor or impaired, and since we can't assume unstated facts, both have legal competency. Selling a used car is also a legal object.
Some people might say a handshake isn't a real contract, or that Emerson is free to change his mind until Roger pays. Under common law, though, a contract doesn't have to be written or signed to be binding. The handshake itself isn't the contract. It's evidence that both sides agreed. Consideration also doesn't require cash to change hands, because a promise can be a consideration too. Roger promised to pay $5,000 and Emerson promised to sell the car, and that exchange of promises created a binding contract the moment they agreed. Emerson could have walked away before Roger accepted, since an offer can usually be revoked until it's accepted. Once they shook hands, though, it was too late. Paying the money and handing over the keys are just performance of a contract that already exists.
Joe Don's "only if the engine starts" was a conditional offer, because the engine starting was a condition precedent that had to happen before his promise took effect. In the end, it doesn't matter whether the engine starts. Emerson was already bound to Roger, so he had no right to accept another offer, and selling to Val or Joe Don would have been a breach of his contract with Roger.
Roger gets the car for $5,000. If Emerson refused to hand it over, Roger could ask the court for specific performance, which orders the seller to complete the sale instead of just paying damages. Courts usually reserve this remedy for unique items (Lingwall, 2022), and a well-kept classic automobile fits, since Roger couldn't simply buy the same car somewhere else. Val keeps her cash, and Joe Don keeps shopping.
I look forward to reading everyone's rulings!
References
Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
Lingwall, J. (2022). Business law: A risk management approach (2nd ed.). Boise State University. https://boisestate.pressbooks.pub/buslaw2e/
Gen-AI Attribution Statement
I utilized Gemini, a Gen-AI system created by Google, and Claude AI, to complete this assignment. Gemini and Claude AI were employed for the following purposes: proofreading and editing.