Let's say Jack and Bob are buyers and sellers. Jack wants to sell his house and Bob wants to buy it. They both write up a contract for sale and sign it but said the price will be set later. A week later Jack decides not to sell it and doesn't tell Bob.
Bob takes jack to civil court. Who wins this case and why? Do they actually have a contract or since they didn't set a price so they don't? What are the legal principles?
2007-11-13 14:31:47 · 4 answers · asked by simon c 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The contract is null and void because there was no "meeting of the minds".
The most important part of a real estate contract is the price. With no price set there was no agreement, and the contract is void.
Richard
2007-11-13 14:34:43 · answer #1 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i comprehend greater appropriate to the English legal device than the yank yet so a techniques as i comprehend administrative litigation pertains to concerns of community government, civil litigation pertains to disputes between persons or agencies and criminal litigation is the state against persons or agencies.
2016-10-02 01:13:11 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What he said.
Sales price is a material term of the contract. Without it, there is no contract.
Unless someone is making the argument that they agreed on a "fair market value" to be determined later, or a "reasonable value" to be determined later.
But you didn't say that.
Oh, and there's a statute of frauds problem too.
2007-11-13 14:36:35 · answer #3 · answered by raichasays 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on stipulations in the contract. Usually the contract is "conditional" I would say that there isn't enough information here.
2007-11-13 14:35:53 · answer #4 · answered by mj69catz 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋