Dealer Gives 911 GT3 RS 4.0 to Wrong Guy, Judge Awards 50k to Right Guy
01-21-2016, 07:32 PM
#16
How do you validate who is a 'true' enthusiast vs. a greedy 'reseller'?
I hope Porsche never goes down the Ferrari route where they only want to sell certain models based on a stupid qualification. For that elitist reason alone, even if I ever could, I would NEVER buy a Ferrari.
The question is about fairness with no pre-judgement. If a person got to the dealership first and put money down, that is considered an 'agreement' between two parties and the agreement must be honoured...no 'ifs', 'ands', or 'buts'.
I hope Porsche never goes down the Ferrari route where they only want to sell certain models based on a stupid qualification. For that elitist reason alone, even if I ever could, I would NEVER buy a Ferrari.
The question is about fairness with no pre-judgement. If a person got to the dealership first and put money down, that is considered an 'agreement' between two parties and the agreement must be honoured...no 'ifs', 'ands', or 'buts'.
Im referring to the straw purchasers of Chinese clients: Some of the tells are first time Porsche buyers, paying with cash (no finance), unwillingness to sign 'No export' document, out of state purchase etc.
The practice sucks and I would be pi$$ed if I had the coin for a La Ferrari and some investor scooped it out from me to ship it off to China. Steve Wynn lost his Ferrari dealership because he broke his contract with Ferrari and sold off a personal La Ferrari for profit.
http://autoweek.com/article/car-news...y-questionable
01-22-2016, 05:24 PM
#17
https://casetext.com/case/taylor-v-h...04-4000390-sep
01-23-2016, 03:45 PM
#18
I love how in the UK the loser has to pay both parties legal bills. This would stop many of the bogus lawsuits around here.
01-26-2016, 11:53 AM
#19
Burning Brakes
We play by the "American Rule", where most of the time, the parties will pay their own legal fees in litigation.
Unless there's what's called a "fee shifting" statute for a given cause of action (discrimination cases, for example), where the loser of a case will pay the victor's legal and attorney fees.
After reading through the article, it's pretty interesting how similar and dissimilar our jurisprudence is from Mother England.
1. Materiality and missing terms of a contract: This is normally governed by the Uniform Commercial Code in the US. Most states have adopted the UCC in part, or in full. Generally, even if there are terms missing from a contract, such that a colorable argument can be made that an agreement is not a binding contract (an absence of offer + consideration + acceptance), as long as there is a method, or some other guarantee of "filling in" the missing terms of a contract, even if such terms are material (except for quantity, I believe), courts will normally find the agreement to be a binding contract.
Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 there can be an agreement to sell what are called future goods, which include goods to be acquired by the seller after the making of the contract of sale and there can be a contract for the sale of goods the acquisition of which by the seller depends on a contingency which may or may not happen: ss. 5(1)-(2). That there was no vehicle at the time of any agreement to sell, and that Pendragon might not be allocated one, were not fatal, therefore, to the existence of a contract. Similarly, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 makes explicit that the price of goods need not be fixed by the contract but may be "left to be fixed in a manner agreed by the contract, or may be determined by the course of dealing between the parties":
As a matter of general principle, the courts are readier in modern times to find a contract "even though apparent certainty may be lacking as regards some term such as the price, provided that some means or standard by which that term can be fixed can be found": Cudgen Rutile (No.2) Pty Ltd v. Chalk [1975] AC 520, 536F-G, per Lord Wilberforce
2. Parol Evidence Rule and Collateral Agreements: That's Parol, not Parole (my Contracts professor famously docked you half a letter grade if you spelled it as such on the final
). Otherwise known as "extrinsic evidence" - terms or conditions of an agreement made precedent to, or contemporaneously with, the formation of a contract. This is why most agreements contain an "integration clause" - a clause that states that an agreement's terms is limited to anything within the four corners of a document, and disclaims any other promises or conditions made before, or during the formation of an agreement. Our jurisprudence on contracts relies heavily on the Restatement of Contracts (of which I think we are in our second edition), which, like the UCC, has been adopted in whole, or in large parts by our state and federal courts.Typically, any conditions or terms expressed by either party before or after the formation of an agreement have no legal effect on the contractual relationship between the parties to a an agreement, unless (there are other exceptions) it is a collateral agreement: an separate agreement made before the formation or integration of a contract supported by additional consideration. In order for an agreement to be collateral, it must not contradict express (terms written on the contract itself) or implied terms of a contract.
There is ample authority that the courts may treat a statement intended to have contractual effect as a contract collateral to the main transaction, in particular where one party enters the main contract because the statement is an assurance on a certain point. Mr Hughes was ordering the 911 GT3 RS4 [sic] from Pendragon and paying the deposit on 18 March 2011 because of the assurance that he would be first in the queue if Porsche allocated one to the dealership. Mr Mansfield's statement to that effect was endorsed by his "boss" on 18 March 2011 as was his 23 March 2011 email. In my view, the statement was intended to have contractual effect, the consideration for it being entry into the main contract, the written contract of 18 March 2011.
Ahhhh ... That's so cool to me.
I might be wrong, in whole, or in part. Just shooting from the hip while being put on hold by the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid for a client.
I know there are probably other attorneys on here that specialize in transactional work that may know waaaaaaayyyyyy more than my greenhorned *** does.
