Contract Law: Sale by Auction; Undeclared Reserve Price What is the correct position: during an auction, the Auctioneer accepted a bid but when the client returned to pick up the sold item, the Auctioneer declined to get the money saying the accepted price was fall below the reserve price. Can the bidder who won sue for breach of contract? NB: The Auctioneer did not mention that there was a reserve price on the item.
Generally, the bids are the offer which the auctioneer may, but is not bound to, accept. (Chitty on Contracts, § 4-025). Many Sale of Goods Acts specify that the &quot;sale is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of a hammer&quot; (see Ontario's Sale of Goods Act; see also Chitty on Contracts, § 4-025). If the auctioneer is not going to accept the bid, the auctioneer may withdraw the lot. If the property is put up for auction subject to a reserve price, no contract is formed if the auctioneer mistakingly purports to accept a bid lower than the reserve price (Chitty on Contract, § 4-026). Any after-the-fact declaration of the existence of a reserve bid has no bearing on the formation of the contract. The only thing that matters is whether the property is put to auction subject to a reserve price. If it is not put up subject to a reserve price, then the contract for sale is formed with the highest bidder when the auctioneer announces the completion of the auction. If the property is put up subject to a reserve price, then no contract is formed, even where there is purported acceptance by the auctioneer.
You cannot In a conflict between written and oral terms of a contract, the written terms prevail. In any event, by you utterance you have not accepted the contract; you have made a counter-offer which the other party has not accepted and have then gone on to accept their original offer. You would need the written agreement of the other party that they accept your terms and that they understand that clicking the “I accept” is not an acceptance of their terms but merely a means of completing the technical procedure.
No (in almost all U.S. jurisdictions). Truth or falsity is evaluated when a statement is originally made and doesn't have to remain true forever. Also, generally the law treats an ad like that as an invitation for you to make any offer to them, not a binding offer to form a contract that is held open indefinitely. So you can't force them into a contract simply by accepting their offer. The default rule is that an ad is an invitation to make an offer rather than an offer that can be accepted. And, even if it really is an offer, when it does not state any termination date, the default rule is that it can be withdrawn at any time.
It's right in the contract In the event I fail to take delivery of the vehicle purchased by me within forty-eight (48) hours after I have been notified by you that it is ready for delivery and pay the total contract price in the manner indicated, my deposit in the amount of $300 may, at your option, be retained by you to compensate you in whole or in part for any loss sustained by you. Your right to retain my deposit shall be in addition to and not instead of any other right or remedy provided by applicable law including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the sale of the car or truck I agree to purchase. If the amount of my deposit exceeds actual damages sustained by you, you will promptly refund the difference to me. The car was ready on day 3. As a result, the Customer was obligated to pay and take delivery of the vehicle until day 5. Because the customer did not follow through with the purchase, the deposit is used to compensate the salesman in the amount that covers the costs of preparing the sale and having the car on the lot for those days that the salesman could not sell it to someone else. At the end of day 5, the contractual obligation to hold the car for the customers in exchange for the deposit ended, and the other clauses of the contract (car for rest of payment) become void. The car salesman is in his right to sell the car because the actual sales contract has fallen through and the holding fee/deposit expired, as the very quoted paragraph shows. Based on the final sentence of the quoted portion of the contract, to get a part of the deposit back, one would need to establish that the losses are less than the contractually fixed amount of 300 USD. When I had my car at the workshop and could not get it back on the day it was done with repairs, I was also informed that holding my car for more than a day would incur storage fees of up to 15 € per day. Similarly, the last time I bought a car, I was told that the sale included a fresh inspection and oil. Those are costs to the seller and can be accounted for in the deposit. The inspection costs about ~120 € for a new TÜV certificate and exhaust check and the materials for an oil change come for about 70 €. This leaves about 70 € cover for the mechanic and salesman's wages for about one hour. That's 300 €, or about 330 USD today. As such, costs to prepare a contract and transfer, inspect the car for roadworthiness as well as storage fees most likely are reasonably assessed to be in the 300 USD area.
Nope, the seller can't refuse &quot;to sell&quot;. They have sold it. They sold it right at the moment the contract was created (which, depending on where they were, would not necessarily even need to be in writing). The deposit is irrelevant. What is relevant is that now your friend must pay the full balance, and the seller must hand over the car. If the seller does not do that, that is a breach of contract which can be fixed by going to the court and obtaining an order to hand the car over.
You cannot pass on better title than you have The fraudster (B) in this scenario does not have good title in the car and so the thief (C) doesn't either: 1) because they are a thief and 2) because the person they stole it from didn't own it. If C had paid B for the car then C would still not own it because while they are no longer a thief, B still doesn't have good title. This is the case even if C didn't know that B didn't own the car. A is entitled to recover the car from whoever has it. There are 3 exceptions to this rule: Voidable title: If B acquires title through a contract that is voidable (e.g. A is a minor) and then sells it to C. C as an owner in good faith owns the goods even if A voids the contract with B. Entrustment: If B has been entrusted the goods by A and sells them (perhaps by mistake) to C in the ordinary course of B's business. C as a good-faith buyer owns the goods. A can seek recompense from B but cannot get the goods from C. This probably needs an example, I take antique jewellery to an antique jeweller for cleaning, the jeweller's assistant mistakenly sells them, I lose the goods and the jeweller must compensate me. Negotiable instruments: Certain things, notably cash, cheques, shares and bearer bonds are subject to different rules. If B steals, say cash, from A and then uses that cash to buy something from C, A cannot demand the return of the cash from C unless they can prove that C knew that B had stolen it. Negotiable interests belong to anyone who acquired them in good faith. In all cases, a good-faith actor who is out of pocket is owed compensation from the bad faith actor - whether it’s possible to collect this is a practical rather than a legal issue.
What would the implications be if an employee were to refuse signing an amendment and insist on what was stated in the original signed contract, even if he/she knows it's a mistake? The contract is voidable unless the employer's subsequent conduct reinforces its legitimacy. The employee's attempt to take advantage of something he knew was a mistake contravenes the covenant of good faith and fair dealing on which contracts are premised. South African contract law is not an exception to this: The law of contract underpins private enterprise in South Africa and regulates it in the interest of fair dealing. The employer can resort to records of prior communications between the parties to prove that the stated compensation was intended as yearly, not monthly. Even if those records are not available in a judicial dispute, the employee would have a hard time persuading a court that the salary that was agreed upon is 12 times --or exceeds by a factor of 12-- the market rate for a job position of similar type.
There is no requirement that the terms of a contract be even-handed The common law position is that parties are free to contract on whatever terms they like: if you agree to sell me your late model car for $1 that's a matter between the two of us. The law allows you to make a bad bargain. Unconscionability There is an equitable doctrine that allows the court to refuse to enforce unconscionable contracts or terms. The California Supreme Court has ruled that &quot;the central idea (of the) unconscionability doctrine is concerned not with ‘a simple old-fashioned bad bargain &quot;… but with terms that are 'unreasonably favorable to the more powerful party.'&quot; In other words, courts will not enforce contracts that are &quot;overly harsh,&quot; &quot;unduly oppressive,&quot; or &quot;so one-sided as to shock the conscience.&quot; However, I would be extremely surprised if the terms you are upset about rising to the level of unconscionability. The basic test of unconscionability, as expressed in official comment 1 to section 2-302, is: whether, in the light of the general commercial background and the commercial needs of the particular trade or case, the clauses involved are so one-sided as to be unconscionable under the circumstances existing at the time of the making of the contract. . . .The principle is one of the prevention of oppression and unfair surprise. . . and not of disturbance of allocation of risks because of superior bargaining power. They seem to be dealing with risk allocation and moving risks that are normally on the lender to the buyer or requiring the buyer to waive statutory rights and warranties - there is nothing illegal in that unless the law has a &quot;no contracting out&quot; provision. Some laws do and some laws don't. Some laws may not allow contracting out in consumer transactions but may allow them in business transactions. You seem to be talking about some sort of equipment financing arrangement. As such, if you don't like the deal, there's a bank down the street with a different deal. US law recognises that once there is a contract, the parties have to act in good faith to ensure each party gets the benefit of the bargain they made but there is no such requirement in negotiating that bargain. If you can use your economic strength to get a better deal, that's called capitalism.