Business Law Essay
Student Name
Institution
Date
Business Law Essay
The Issue, in this case, is whether Tony entered a Contract with Mary’s Tool and Hardware store. Tony went to the store to see if he can find an electric drill. The store attendants had the responsibility to help Tony to understand all the rules that were required before a purchase is made. Being a carpenter, we assume that Tony new the estimated prices of the electric bell, at least from the prices in the past. The offer at the table was impressive to Tony because of information indicated about Buzz 4500. Also, an assessment of whether the salesperson was responsible for informing the customer about the terms in the store.
Another critical termination of the case is the time of making the contract. If the customer is willing and able to buy the product, at what point will the company agree with the customer. It is essential to understand whether the statement, “I have found exactly what I want. That’s an offer that is too good to refuse. I am going to buy it “is is the part of an agreement between the store and the company. Also, this paper will examine where the contract is made, if it is with the Sales Assistant, Lisa’s desk, or when he pays for the product. In an attempt to determine the cause, this paper examines various contract principles and the factors that make a contract to be enforceable.
First, did the practice caveat emptor? The policy requires the seller to provide full information about the underlying goods. Second, is whether Tony was allowed freedom of consent when he decided to select Buzz 4500 and later choose not to buy at the county? According to the common law, parties should enter into contracts freely and with voluntary consent. The third is determining whether there were vitiating factors; if there are materially degrading factors, then there would not be a contract because of the lack of genuine consent. Examples of vitiating factors include mistake, misrepresentation, undue influence, and duress.
According to the existing facts, Tony was not given clear information about the terms of the purchase. It is common sense that a product is deemed purchased at the time the payment is made, and until that time, the buyer is free to change his mind. The information also indicates that the customer (Tony) was not allowed to exercise freedom of consent at the point of payment. It should not be necessary for the company whether Tony picks the product from the table and carries it to the counter. The customer should be allowed to exercise his freedom of consent up to the point he makes the payment as long the product is not damaged. Any agreement entered in such a situation would be unreasonable and unfair.
Misrepresentation is detected where Lisa says, “I’ve studied Business Law, and it‘s too late to pull out. You have to buy this now because we have a formal agreement and you have accepted our stores offer”. Arguably, there is no concept in business law that allows an agent to force and a customer into an agreement but out of freedom and consent. Tony made remembered he made a mistake by picking Buzz 4500, going for $250 when he could go to another place and get it at $199. Even if there were a contract, it would be voidable because the customer had not made the payment Codelfa v State (1982). The agreement would have occurred under duress because Lisa forced Tony to pay for Buzz 4500 even after informing of the mistake Barton v Armstrong (1973. Compelling Tony to pay for the product would not create a show of business efficacy.
The facts given do not provide a point of reasonable agreement for a contract between Tony and the store. It would be fair to enforce the contract if the customer made the payment on the sale person’s desk and pick the item at Lisa’s office. But, the statement made by Tony to the salesperson could not present a reasonable situation for a contract Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971). At the time of making the statement, Tony had not remembered about the $199 Buzz 4500 and had not made mad payment for the $250 Buzz 4500 in the store. The statement made by Tony was made in the context of the comment about the electric bell on offer, “The Buzz 4500 cordless electric drill. SPECIAL OFFER FOR TODAY ONLY: $250”. It would be reasonably thought that the statement did not indicate anything about an agreement.
The requirements of a contract of offer, acceptance, and consideration should be made for a commitment to exist. In this case, the store had a special offer of Buzz 4500 at $250. It meant that the store. They were willing to sell the product to any customer who agreed accepted the offer. Tony took the offer given by the company. However, there was no contract because there is no consideration for the agreement. A deal would have existed that Tony paid $250 for the item.
With the intention to answer the question, a contract was not formed between Tony and the Store. The store agents did not disclose full information about what they considered an agreement; agreements are finalized generally at the counter. Lisa did not allow Tony to make payment voluntarily and freely but compelled the customer to enter a contract because he accepted the offer. There were misrepresentations and mistakes in making the contract, which would make the contract void. Finally, the three requirements of a deal were not met. There was an offer, acceptance but lacked consideration.