Statue of Frauds Willie Has a Very

Statue of Frauds

Willie has a very good case in regard to the burns he received when his automobile caught fire. The issues at hand are: the car broke within the same day of delivery so there was a breach of contract between Willie and the dealer; same day car fire also opens the dealer up to the repercussions of Willie's state lemon laws; the faulty engine that caught fire exposes the manufacturer of the automobile or engine if that party is a separate entity to the torts of products liability and the tort of negligence; the manufacturer of the actual part within the engine, if that party is different than the automobile or engine manufacture, are also responsible for the torts of product liability and negligence. Therefore, the defendants will be:

Dealer (breach of contract and lemon law)

Automobile Manufacturer (for engine and seatbelt)

Engine Manufacturer if separate from Automobile Manufacturer

Manufacturer of the actual part that caught fire in the engine

Manufacturer of the seat belt assembly

B. The negotiation for the car falls under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and more specifically would be the tort of contract law. Prior to the burns and fire, Willie's case would have been a simple contract dispute because Willie requested a specific make model and accessories in his Porsche and the dealer complied by actually having that monstrosity made. A contract is created by an offer being made, the act of acceptance to the offer and then consideration as the final step. Also, the contract laws usually are very specific about how can enter into a contract and in this case as presented it is assumed that Willie has legal capacity, the product was of legal matter and the contract, although unsigned, was in writing (purchase order). It is reasonable to assume that the contract was binding. The injuries obtained in the car fire are also torts but they are working on assumed contracts with the manufactures of the products being produced and sold.

C. A contract (offer, acceptance, consideration) was created in the negotiation between Willie and the dealer. Willie made acceptance of the contract to purchase the car by coming to pick up it up on or near the promised delivery date. Willie was not required to accept the car as the dealer stated. But, the reason was only because the dealer provided the wrong type of hot tub (fit 7 instead of 8). In my opinion, Willie was still obligated to accept the car if the car had met the oral agreement later documented on the purchase order. One chance that Willie may have may be if his state has a mutual mistake justification for contracts. Both parties had the oversight of Willie not signing but that does not change the fact that Willie did orally request the odd car.