Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Common Law and UCC

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    Peter visited a car dealership and test-drove a used car. After discussing the price with the salesman, Brian, and learning that he could purchase the car for $500 less than the sticker price, Peter asked Brian to hold the car for him until 8:00 that evening so that he could bring his wife back to see the car. Brian agreed, writing out a note promising not to sell the car before 8:00P.M. The note was written on dealership stationery, but Brian did not sign his name. The dealership broke its promise and sold the car to Stewie before 8:00 P.M. Was it free to revoke its offer to Peter? Stewie, the new purchaser of the car (and a nonmerchant), later offered in a signed writing to sell the car to Lois and to hold the car for her until she returned with her husband. Could Stewie revoke this offer? Discuss the outcome using legal principles (include an analysis of both common law and UCC. For each part, specify which law applies and why. Complete the analysis using the appropriate law.)

    250 words

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 4, 2020, 2:06 am ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    The first case between the potential buyer, Peter, and the seller, Brian would be categorized as a legal matter between a merchant and a consumer; therefore it is covered under the UCC. In this case, the promise by Brian verbally to sale the vehicle at $500 below sticker price to Peter was then reinforced as intent upon Brian writing the acceptance to hold the car for Peter until 8PM on dealer stationary. Under the current UCC, this would constitute a "firm offer". To paraphrase ...

    Solution Summary

    So, in this case, applying the firm offers code of the UCC, one could see where Peter may have a case for recovering the $500 dollars he would have saved from the dealer by demonstrating the letter of intent the seller gave him. It would be up to a judge's discretion and interpretation of the UCC in this case as each state sees these situations differently (Spiegel, 2008).