LEGAL analysis to a contract problem

Little Red Corvette

 

For there to be a lawful contract performed it must have evidence of the contract, which can be either verbally, by show of conduct, or by words and conduct, all which must show intent and expressed mutual consent. Thus to have a contract there must be offer and acceptance of that contract. For the offer to be lawful it must be all of the following: definite, communicated, commitment to contract. The exception is when both parties are aware that there is no intent to contract from either side (judged objectively), there is no contract.

 
 

The issue is that Joe, who is the owner of the little red Corvette, never intended to form a contract with Ed. Ed argues that Joe drafted a lawful contract and by refusing to sell Ed the red Corvette Joe is breaching that contract.

 
 

The set of events occurred in a bar. Joe drank a significant amount of alcohol at a bar; six 12oz beers and six shots of bourbon. (a shot is 2oz). Ed was also present at the bar, the entire time drinking only none alcoholic beverage, Coke. Ed knew Joe was in financial trouble; Ed also really wanted Joes sweet red Corvette worth $25,000. Joe and Ed have been enemies for twenty years. Nevertheless, Ed waited until Joe started to get tipsy to approach Joe and offer to buy the red Corvette for $15,000 and two bushels of tomatoes. Joe heard Ed out, laughed in Ed's face and hearing about the tomatoes decided to go with the appeared to him joke. Joe exclaimed, "Yeah right. You bet. You're just the person I want to sell my sweet Corvette to" Joe used a bar napkin on which he wrote out a contract using insulting fraises towards Ed and derogatory meaning such as "Wow, I get tomatoes too", to finish the contract, after which Joe threw the napkin on the bar, still laughing uproariously. Ed grabbed the napkin and left. The next day Ed came barring the money and tomatoes demanding for the car, Joe refused to accept either.

 
 

The outward expression of Joe who owns the sweet corvette was not in the normal state of expression and mind to have a valid intent. since Joe drank a significant amount, causing his thought process to be less then a reasonable human beings thought process, the belligerency and derogatory words such as 'yeah right' and 'Ed the Jerk' all rightfully express the outward intent of Joe to be less then sincere and meaningful. Nevertheless, if one was not aware of Joe being drunk, the signing of the agreement on the napkin does present a contract. Ed tries to argue this. The facts are as shown that Joes signed his name and agreed to the offer from Ed, this signals definiteness and communication of acceptance. Joe never directly communicated that he was joking to Ed. Furthermore the signing of Joes name indicated as Ed argues the commitment made by Joe. Thus Ed saw commitment, communication and definiteness of the acceptance to the offer Ed made. Thus Ed argues there was a valid contract since both the offer and acceptance were concluded. Joe on the other hand did perform all of the acts for acceptance but never intended the acts to be taken seriously due to his sarcasm to the whole situation. From this the conclusion comes to Ed having the right to win the suit in which he argues breach of contract by Joe.

 
 

The reasonable meaning of words and or acts of the person clearly depict Joe to be in a state of high level of intoxication which may cause sever incoherency and inability to rationally evaluate the circumstances presented. Thus, the acts and word's which in turn come from Joe are those in consequence of the inability to conclusively depict the situation from which Joes acts and responses are arising. Nevertheless, Joe did sign a contract on a napkin which states "I hereby agree to sell for $15,000 my sweet Corvette which is worth $25,000 to Ed, the JERK, Oh and he promises to give me tomatoes, too. Wow!" This occurred when Ed watched Joe get significantly intoxicated before he approached with intent to force a contract out of Joe, knowing Joes vulnerable state of mind to reason while drunk. Ed, who only drank coke all this time, should be able to reasonably anticipate the circumstances of Joes state of mind and thus aware that the contract Joe drew up and signed was not with intent or commitment to the contract but to make fun of Ed. Further more, both parties knew that the car is Joes prized possession and worth $25,000.

 
 

Ed argues there was a contract, informal contract which is also known as expressed mutual assent. Ed says that he knew that Joe was in serious need of money, thus it is reasonable in Ed's opinion that Joe would want to accept $15,000 and two bushels of tomatoes, even thought the car is Joes prized possession and is worth about $25,000. Furthermore, Ed tries to argue that even if Joe was joking, it was a secret and undisclosed intent and should be irrelevant. Ed, as stated to knowingly and soberly able to apprehend the drunk state of Joe, was rationally capable as a reasonable man to apprehend that the outward expression of Joe signaled derogatory intent and bitter response to Ed's approach and his offer. Ed continues to insist that the napkin signed by Joe that holds the sell of his sweet red Corvette is a significant contract and that Ed did not and could not know that Joe was joking and never intended to form a contract, and furthermore Joe let him leave with the napkin. Regardless, the law states that from a reasonable objective perspective if the other person knows that the person doesn't have the intent to contract then there is no contract.

 
 

Thus the issue is whether there was reasonable intent of contract for Joe to sell his sweet red corvette. The outward actions used in the process were inconsistent to a serious purposeful deal to contract, such as when Joe proceeded in a laughing uproarious show and scribble on a napkin using derogatory fraises, and signing his name. Furthermore, throwing the napkin on the bar and continuing to laugh about the approach form Ed and the words he just wrote such "Jerk" and paying for the car with money and tomatoes, implies and depicts to a reasonable man that no contract has been made and Joe was only joking. This evidence attends to the law which states that from a reasonable objective perspective if the other person knows that the person doesn't have the intent to contract then there is no contract. Joe continued to show that he was joking throughout this set of events and had no intent to contract, judging objectively any reasonable normal person would know right away that Joe was joking and never intended to sell his sweet red Corvette.

 

The law states that there is no contract judged objectively if both of the parties know that there is no intent to contract, and that the offeror or offeree were joking. Thus the court would have to look at the person's outward expressions of intent and impute the intent that corresponds to the reasonable meaning of the person's words or acts (pp. 253 IL course pack). Thus Joe's contract can not be taken serious. From the evidence of this case, judging objectively, a reasonable person would know that Joe was joking when he drafted the contract and signed his name. The evidence includes all the appreciated means of communication to signal a joke and not intent. The act of Joe is in no way representing intent to contract due to not only his state of intoxication but also to the way he phrased his words and the way he joked about what was being offered to him, specifically the low amount of $15,000 when the car is worth $25,000, and two bushels of tomatoes.

Joe should win the case.