law question.... need help

[vijay101]

ok i admit this is a hw question but ive looked in the book and becuase of the wording of the articles im not too sure so id appreciate some help

thanks


Helene signed a promise to buy an office building, and gave the owner a deposit of 10,000. the deeds were to be signed at the notary's office in two weeks, two days before signing the owner called to tell helene that she had changed her mind and was no longer interested in selling the building. She said she woudl return the 10,000 the next day. Helene is quite angry and wants to know if she can force the sale to be completed. Is there anything in the law which might help her.

[PrimoTurbo]

If she didn’t sign anything then no, and if the answer is yes then the law is messed up.

[vijay101]

If she didn’t sign anything then no, and if the answer is yes then the law is messed up.


lol thats what im wondering, the articles in the book are to vague so its kinda hard to understand

any help would be appreciated

[ah_long]

it depends what the owner decides to do with it, if the owner decides to sell it to another person, than he/she is in deep trouble...

usually a deposit would guarantee the buyer the item, and would guarantee that the seller will sell the item to the specified buyer...

even in a car dealership, if you leave a deposit on a car, you could get a refund of the deposit, and if you leave a deposit on the house, you may get ur deposit back if you provide a legitimate explanation (but you have to get a lawyer etc..)

in your situation, it would be safe to assume that the seller may return the deposit and terminate the sales

[vijay101]

anyone else can help me????

[kingsley]

You in univeristy or high school?

[Ojam]

She might be able to force it.

Basic contract law.

Offer - How ever they first contacted eachother, or maybe the promise (really depends on what is in it though)
Exceptence - Also the promise (but again see above)
Consideration - The $10,000 and the building.

It really comes down to what information was actually in the promise that she signed, without that it's hard to tell.

[chickenbones]

The seller took a deposit which shows intent and agreement to sell, she can't just break the agreement. I think the deposit is the key to this question.

[royal]

There is a law against this sort of thing, i think the seller has to give 2 or 3 day notice to the buyer. This isn't under nay charter or anything its some business law. Plus i think she could win, but i think she would would be compensated a bit, but i dont think the seller will be focred to sell <- that is against the law.

Hope that helps , i have law this semes too.

[Hellfire]

Seller has to sell, deposit and promise is a contact.

[shoprider]

i don't know... I thought I did.. but I think I don't.

[cookie-monster]

As said above...

For a contract to be legally binding, it requires an offer, acceptance of that offer, and consideration (must be valuable - though can be a mere peppercorn).


Here?

Offer? - Was the written "promise" that C signed an offer? If it was sufficiently clear, and unequivocal, that all C had to do was sign in order for all the essential terms of the agreement to be settled.
E.g. "I would like to sell my truck to you" - not an offer, but merely a declaration of D's willingness to enter into negotiations. Why? Because C's assent alone won't give us the terms of the agreement.

Acceptance? - If C signed without changing anything (that could be construed as making a fresh offer), then C plainly accepted the offer.

Consideration? - Deposit paid.

Any reason that the contract might be void? E.g. mistake, etc? Not on the facts. D only indicates that she changed her mind; this isn't an indication of anything that mean that there was no "consensus ad idem" between the parties, i.e. meeting of minds.

So, is D in breach of the contract to purchase?
Yes, by indicating that she has no intention of completing the transfer of title to C.
Rather than a regular "breach" this is really a situation of "anticipatory breach" because D has indicated her intention not to fully perform her obligations under the contract at some specified point *in the future.*

Does C have any remedies?
Yes. Rather than wait for D to fail to transfer title to her, C can choose to treat the anticipatory breach as immediate. I.e. before the date on which D is due to transfer title (the date on which the breach will occur), C can bring an action for damages.
The usual measure of damages for breach of contract is the award of expectation damages (i.e. the value of the promised performance - the market value of the land). Obviously, C has to perform in order to ask for this remedy. So, in effect, C is asking for the difference (if any) between what she would have paid for the land and what the land is worth.
*However,* contracts for the purchase of land are treated differently.
So, C can ask the court for "specific performance" of the contract, i.e. that D transfer title to C in exchange for payment of the remainder of the purchase price. Specific performance is only available in circumstances in which the award of damages would be insufficient to compensate C for her loss. This sounds like such a case.
If the court fails to grant specific performance to C, C can bring an action for her "reliance damages" - the costs she incurred in reliance upon the fact that D was going to perform her side of the contract. So, e.g., C can ask for any legal fees she incurred in reliance upon the contract being fulfilled, or any costs of moving, etc. Obviously, the award of reliance damages is only useful if specific performance is denied, and if the reliance costs incurred are greater than the profit that C expected to make on the sale in the immediate term. C can't bring an action for both specific performance / her full expectation interest and her reliance interest. C must bring these as alternative claims.

In the alternative, if your teacher/prof. is looking for a business-style solution, you could argue that C should present the fact to D that she can sue for specific performance in order to encourage D to complete the contract. You might also want to suggest that C consider increasing her offer by an amount that is lower than the likely legal fees it would take to bring an action for specific performance. C thus stands a better chance of getting what she wants for less than it would cost her if she's forced to commence legal action. And the costs-savings to D from avoiding the lawsuit can also be used to encourage D to reach a deal.

I'm a bit rusty on contract law, but I hope this helps!

[Siefer999]

edit: i guess :arrowu: answer is probably right cause i can barely understand it! :lol:
seller has accepted the deposit to hold the property to sell for a certain amount of time, whether he/she sells it is another story. deposit was laid on the asumption that there was going to be a transaction, however, one has not been put into writing.

should the seller end up selling to another buyer during that time it was to be on hold, then he/she would be in trouble and would have to refund back the money deposited and possibly pay small reprocusions if any but if the seller backs out, returns the depsited money and sells the property after the time it was to be on hold for, its all good.

you or the court cant make me sell something to you if i dont want to. whether you paid a deposit or not. and you or the court cant make me buy somehting whether i made a deposit or not (but you would naturally keep the deposit if i, as the buyer backed out).

by returning the money, the seller is voiding the initial agreement to "hold" the property for sale. no agreement was made to purchase the property as that is done when they sign the official papers.

the least the buyer could get is an arguable and debateable small monetary compensation if she decides to pursue it further which would be unwise as the time and money used to try to get it would make it not worth her while.

final statement: she cant do much...

PS. dont flame me you vultures, im just making a wild guess god dammit... i know some jerk is going to come up with some smart ass remark :lol:

[Hellfire]

you or the court cant make me sell something to you if i dont want to.

Sure they can. Its called specific performance as the poster above you said. However, it is rarely granted, and when it is it is usually in land sales.

[Ayla500]

Similar to a situation I was in 2 years ago. Was about to buy a business(small, inexpensive) Gave the owner $6000 as a "deposit" to show my good faith and serious intentions. Worked hand in hand with her for 1 month in the business. No contracts signed, just cheque exchanged. 2 days before sale was to be finalized, my husband and I were at the lawyers checking everything out and he told us some info that the owner had not disclosed to us (she owed $$ to the Gov.) If we bought the business, we would owe the $$ not her, so we decided not to buy.
I called the owner and told her (real estate agents too) and asked for my $6000 back. She said to give her a couple days. After a week, no answer from her. 1 month later, no answer from her. 2 months later we served her with papers to go to court. We sued her for the $6000 and only got back $3000. We settled for half because we were moving and didnt have time to tie it up in small claims court. We could have gottten all of it, but we didnt have the time or $$ for a lawyer.
Long story short, it took about 1 years to get the money. She paid in post-dated cheques and 4 of them bounced. We almost had to go back to court to get the bounced cheques cleared up. In the end we got our $3000, and learned a hard lesson.
NEVER give a deposit with out a contract stating it will be returned if the need arises!!!!

[vijay101]

wow thanks alot guys really helped
and for the guy who was wondering im in college, this is just a basic law class and the question was confusing but thanks for clearning everything up