In a message dated 3/6/02 2:09:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
davriker@pacbell.net writes:
<< Greg did not have an executed California Automobile Sales Contract. He had
a sheet of paper with some numbers written on it, and a receipt for a
deposit on an ordered vehicle. Very big difference. >>
Not trying to be adversarial here. But I respectfully still disagree.
Had the dealer entered into a California Automobile Sales Contract, it may
have been availed certain statutory protections, such as a right of recession
It may well be a violation of the statue to have taken the deposit without
having entered into the standard sales contract. This may result in some
penalties to the dealer, but the dealer cannot use its own misfeasance as a
defense.
In the absence of any other contract, the Uniform Commercial Code should
control, which merely requires that a contract for the sale of goods (a car
is goods) over a threshold dollar amount, must be evidenced by a written
memorandum. (Guy if you are reading this, you Brits call this the Statue of
Frauds. We imported your laws long before there were LBCs.)
Alot of this stuff is coming off the top of my head, but as I recall
Lousianna is the only state which did not adopt the Uniform Commerical Code.
This allows companies to do business in almost any state and know what they
are getting into.
It is respectfully sumbitted, that a memorandum, which specifies the model of
the car and the amount and the names of the parties exists and the contract
is enforcible.
I don't think there is judge or jury stupid enough not to agree with this
point.
Sorry guys, it is the old lawyer in me coming out again.
David Oliner, Esq.
PS Just remember when you get free legal advice, you are getting what you
paid for.
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/spridgets
|