a few law questions?

Question

4. Two adults, John and Jackie, were eating lunch together when John says; “I really need to sell my Harley Davidson motorcycle for $6,000 so I can pay my bills.” Jackie says, “I love mopeds, I will pay you $6,000 for your scooter.” John replies, “Great, I will deliver it on Monday.” Jackie is very upset when she sees the motorcycle on Monday.

a. Was a valid contract formed after Jackie’s response that she would give $6,000 for the scooter i.e. before John’s final response? Why or why not?

b. Was a valid contract formed by the end of the conversation i.e. after John’s final response? If so, is it a unilateral or bilateral contract?

c. Identify and explain any possible ways Jackie could get out of the contract if a valid contract has been formed. In your opinion, would Jackie be successful in rescinding the contract i.e. is it likely a court would declare it void? Why or why not?

d. Is this situation covered by the UCC or common law? Explain.

Answer 1

a. No. Jackie's response was a counter offer, as it offered different terms than what was offered by John.

b. Yes, a bilateral contract for the sale of the scooter was formed. Jackie offered, John accepted.

c. BUT--if there never was a scooter at all and Jackie misunderstood what was offered and John didn't realize that Jackie was not referring to the HD, then they can rescind the contract on the grounds of mistake.

d. Common law. UCC covers goods in commerce, not occasional sales of private parties.

Answer 2

(Wow, I disagree a lot with the previous answerers.)

(a & b.) You could argue the "mirror image" rule (i.e. the acceptance has to be on a "mirror image" of the offer, with no different terms or conditions, under the common law) but John DID NOT offer to sell the motorcycle -- he was saying that he needed to sell it. Jackie's statement really was an offer; there had been no acceptance.
(b) "Meeting of the minds" has no real validity here. The question is whether there was mutual mistake or unilateral mistake or no mistake... that is, whether the parties OBJECTIVELY understood what was being bargained for. Clearly, John knew what his Harley was. Assuming Jackie was telling the truth, she believed a Harley to be a moped. Assuming that John heard Jackie's statement and understood that a moped/scooter aren't the same as a motorcycle, John had knowledge of Jackie's misstake. John cannot "snap up" the deal with knowledge of Jackie's Mistake. Thus, this is the rare circumstance where a unilateral mistake leads to a finding of no contract.

(c) see above.

(d) Shoudl be UCC UCC covers contracts for the sale of goods... it doesn't have to be between merchants or with a big time sale. There are some provisions that only apply "between merchants" but most apply to all contracts for the sale of "goods." A motorcycle is "goods," so the UCC should apply (which makes, for example, the mirror image rule different).

Answer 3

If your last sentence is true, there was no true
'meeting of minds`, and thus, no contract.