Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
In that case, the buyer would be entitled to rescind the sale or to trade the item of lesser value for the item originally bargained for, or to recoup the difference between the value received and the value for which he paid.
Did the gallery provide what it guaranteed?
No. The seller actually provided something worth much more than the item it originally guaranteed, and the mistake inured to the benefit of the buyer rather than to his detriment. There is no cause of action for accidentally benefiting the other party.
What about the element of duress?
There is no issue of duress. The requirements of duress are not met where the putative "duress" relates to something that is inconsequential like the type of threat made by the seller here. Even if the threat was credible, the requirements of duress are not met where the supposed harm threatened is capable of redress through ordinary civil procedures. In this case, if the seller made good on his threat to badmouth the buyer, the buyer could recover against him by showing that he lost out...
To claim duress, the buyer would have to have been threatened with bodily injury or other credible threat to his (or another) person.
Is the gallery director potentially liable to the defense of duress if you agree to rescind the contract and return the painting (and hopefully receive a return of the monies you paid).
No, for the reasons expressed above. The buyer is not under any obligation to rescind the transaction that resulted from the seller's unilateral mistake, particularly since the buyer was completely oblivious to the mistake at the time. Unless the buyer was threatened with bodily injury or other similarly dangerous action that would cause a reasonable person to fear for his safety (or another's), he has no claim for duress.
If the buyer chooses to agree to rescind the transaction, he is entitled to that for which he originally believed he was purchasing or its value.
This most commonly occurs when the item is purchased from a business in another state and shipped to the user's state (most states do not impose sales taxes on products that are shipped to another state). Zoning Laws Zoning laws, which typically include local ordinances that regulate: parking, advertising and signage, use of the land surrounding the business and even the type of business that is allowed to be conduct in
Business Law The objective of this work in writing is to examine the case study and to answer the three following questions based on the information provided and the relevant consumer laws governing such defective product purchases. Paul Price is clearly concerned about the Tefal Actifry. Explain to Paul Price about his rights regarding the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (amended). In your answers you are required to refer to the relevant
COMPUTERS AND COMPUTING, ACCOUNTING II, BUSINESS LAW1AThe main advantage of the media websites is that it allows for quick dispersal of information and exchange of ideas through a diverse range of people from various cultures allowing for intercultural exchange. They also allow for direct connections with the audience, which may include friends or business partners. The main risk associated with these is social security. The accounts may be hacked, leaving
Philadelphia The managers at the law firm were confronted by the dilemma regarding Beckett's AIDS. There are two elements to the dilemma. The first is the question of whether Beckett's illness was going to challenge his competency. The second is how they should approach the issue of his AIDS and homosexuality, which seems to have been a problem for some of them. Wheeler has been a valuable asset to the firm,
Business Ethics Three common characteristics of poor decision making are the following errors in logic: appeals to pity, ad hominem arguments, and arguments from authority. Appeals to pity do not focus on the victim and try to create pity for a victim in order to elicit a certain result. However, these appeals to pity frequently fail to adequately link the lobbied-for action with the victim's predicament. That someone is in a
Promissory estoppel is a term in the common law doctrine that is used by courts to implement promises made and consequently relied upon. This law doctrine is usually used when there is no formal contract though the involved parties have acted as if there is such a contract. As courts dictates the terms of how these promises should be implemented, they use this doctrine to enforce contract on the agreement