Buyer and seller enter into a contract where buyer agrees to purchase a car for 100$. Buyer breaches the contract. What are the expectancy damages that will be awarded to seller if the car is still valued at 100$?
???
Lots of attempts to dissuade people from attending law school on these forums, but this is definitely a new one.
What do you think the damage award should be?
However if the seller posted an ad in a newspaper after buyer1 breached he could recover those fees.
The $ sign comes before the number, not after.
Nice try, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Another contract hypo (feel free to disregard if this is hijacking op’s thread)
As a broke law student, A browses through an internet site where ppl sell, among other things, their furniture directly to buyer. A sees a table that he likes. However, the seller asks for $100. A can’t afford it. As sends the seller an email asking: “Is the table still available? will you take $50 for the table?” The seller responds “Yes, and I will take $50 for the table.” A replies to the first seller: “Sorry, I am not interested.”
The seller, meanwhile, don’t know that A simultaneously contacts a second seller, and buys a table from that second seller for for $30.
The first seller is pissed. He comes to you for legal advice. What will you tell him?
I understand that this is a completely douchey response, but:
What do you think his legal advice should be?
I learned an important and painful lesson this summer. If you pose a legal question to a supervising attorney, you better be prepared for the question: “what do you think the answer is?”
Unless there was some reliance or some reason that the car was worth more to Buyer than the $100 that it is supposedly valued at (which we would expect since he bothered to make the contract)… right?
I agree with this.
A car is a good so the UCC would apply in this situation.
Under the UCC, in the case of a buyer’s breach, the seller may, among other things, resell the goods and recover damages for the breach. 2-703.
This would probably be the seller’s best remedy in this situation.
lol. chill dude. I am not your supervising attorney. I was bored in contract, so I made something up to make my study more interesting.
UCC doesn’t apply to the sale of used goods.
Or does it? I’m a bit rusty.
UCC apply when the value of good is more than $500 , I think , in this hypo it does not apply .Or I confuse it with Statute of frauds ? However it can apply to used good
I think the $500 is from the Statute of Frauds.
thanks
See UCC 2-102: “…this Article applies to transactions in goods…”
Right on. That was douchey. I had a nasty boss this summer and that stuff got burned into my head.
I don’t think the exchange in your hypos was "sufficient to show agreement, (including conduct by both parties) which recognizes the existence of such a contract. UCC 2-204.
What do you think?
No, I don’t think the buyer made an offer, therefore, he didn’t enter into an agreement when the seller agrees to sell the table for $50.
How do we even know if the buyer and seller in this hypo are merchants? Should we just assume that when the terms “buyer” and “seller” are used?
Doesn’t matter if they were merchants under the UCC in this situation.
Don’t forget. Car dealers are usually lost volume sellers. So the seller can make up the $100 for not selling the car to the buyer that breached. (or 100$)