5 ms·
legal logic doesn't apply to different variables, so I'm not sure why you did that. the one with more similarities would be that you would have asked the deale
by vmception 4y ago
legal logic doesn't apply to different variables, so I'm not sure why you did that.
the one with more similarities would be that you would have asked the dealer to sell at $28k, the dealer says $30k and you say okay.
secondly the courts accept verbal contracts unless there is a statutory carveout for a specific kind of agreement, the courts require proof to rule which verbal contracts happen to lack. so if you did it over email, or did it through a broker's portal that says using it is a binding contract, then a court would have the proof, which is the logic of the actual case here.
- eweise 4y agoEven in your scenario over email you agreed to sell to the dealer for $30K, I still don't think it would be a binding contract.
- Swenrekcah 4y agoI think that both reversing the power status and changing the relative amounts is doing the analogy some harm. In my opinion a more relevant analogy is: Car dealership approaches person and asks to buy their car for $2500. Person says “Naah, price is $50,000 bro”. Dealership says: “Sure”. Here I believe it’s more clear that the person is in fact not obligated to part with their car unless they take the required additional step of agreeing to the purchase and finalising all documents.