Business law principles and applications

Sports Memorabilia Issues

Bill would argue that the store employed bait-and-switch. If you market a good, you have to have made a good faith effort to have the good in stock; you cannot just advertise it with no intention of actually having the merchandise, just to sell a higher priced good. Of course, if there was an error in the printing, then the store can argue unilateral mistake, and recision of contract.

On the other hand, the store can argue that there is no contract. Generally, advertisements are not contracts with offer, acceptance and consideration. In fact, advertisements are only invitations to make offers. So, with no contract, Bill has no recourse.

Here, Cody is in better shape than Bill. With such a specific offer (a particular item for $800), courts will construe it to be closer to an offer; in fact they might call it an offer, with Cody given the right to unilaterally accept by showing up with money and the willingness to buy.

The store can still argue no contract, but it would probably lose. More likely, Cody's bait-and-switch claim might work, but really his best shot is simple breach of contract. Store offered to sell the thing, and then refuses to do so. Cody kept up his end of the contract, store breached its end.

Minorities can void a contract. However, Mark can't get away scot-free. He has to have made the payments for the time he had the car, or unjust enrichment will ensue. In other words, he can return the car now and owe nothing moving forward, but he will have had to have paid for the time he had it. Courts might make him pay depreciation too. This is of course only true of Mark didn't fool the owner into thinking he was a majority when he was a minority, under the unclean hands doctrine.

If the owner agrees, it discharges the debt under accord and satisfaction, as long as he takes the funds (cashes the check) knowing or with reason to know that it's consideration for discharging the debt. Even though it seems there's no new consideration here, there actually is; because it's a new promise to pay, given the fact that the owner would probably not be able to collect any funds otherwise.

As for the interest, if Mrs. Green disagrees with the calculation, she can recover under contract theory if she is proven correct. Unilateral mistake can be corrected in this fashion. If however, she knew of the error, then she would not be able to collect after the fact. Of course, she has to prove in a court that the calculation was incorrect.

Mary had contracted away her right to sue. A contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration (i.e., some forebearance) and this contract had all three. Paul offered a severance package, which Mary accepted by cashing the check and agreeing, and the consideration was her giving up her right to sue.