Lee, if you have the e-mails, and they are as you stated you do have a contract. You can sue for enforcement of the contract or for your damages, but in the end it will cost you more in time and trouble than it is worth.

Well, there's the real problem.

It would likely be impossible to sue for enforcement of the contract because the car is probably gone already. The court can't compel the seller to sell to you a car he no longer owns.

And damages - that would be limited to the difference between your deal and the value of the car. Usually not much.

Yep... it would cost me more than I was going to make to prove my point. It's just not worth the effort. I talked to Carmax. They said if he had a number that it was in writing. Oh well. Someday that sort of behavior will catch up with him.

Hi the,

I may be a bit dated in my contract law....not sure where to look...relying on law school on that, and I'm getting a bit old now. haha. And of course, I certainly could be mistaken! BUT, I do know that the UCC WILL apply since there are movable goods involved.

Notwithstanding the necessity of a written contract, there is still no consideration as I see it. Buyer's only cause of action would be an action for Specific Performance, if there is for some reason a contract formed, which I highly doubt.

Also, there are no damages here......buyer is out of pocket for nothing.

Good luck,

I thought offer+acceptance=contract. He said he wanted X for the car. I said OK, X is fine. The consideration (exchange of something of value) is in the contract. I give him money. He gives me the car.

As I read this interpretation I would say we did have a legally binding contract:
http://ledgerism.net/UCCformation.htm

Does the phrase "Beat a dead horse" have any meaning to you?

Lee,

The law provides for countless interpretations. Here, I don't know of one judge that would enforce this agreement. Not without any further surrounding circumstances. Sorry....of course this is just my legal opinion. You may find other opinions that differ....but that's what makes the legal world go round.

Best,

Methinks the seller would prevail based on the statute of frauds since the purchase price was greater than $500.:(

Nobody's beating anything. It's a discussion for the sake of learning a few things.

Doesn't that just say it has to be in writing? I would think that e-mail communications constitutes writing, right? Dang it's been a long time since I had business law classes.

My guess would be that a writing would require a signature or something. Which would raise interesting issues with e-mail communications. Like is a standard "e-mail signature" on the bottom of most e-mails ok? (LOL, kinda).

I'd guess that you would have a problem because even though you sent an e-mail accepting, he didn't sign anything, and didn't do anything arguably in place of signing. Like sending an e-mail back to you saying, "OK, we have a deal. Signed, Joe." That might present an interesting case - would that be considered a high-tech "signature?"

I don't think this is beating a dead horse, this comes up all the time with car guys. If a buyer really wants to lock a seller down, get a SIGNED agreement, with a liquidated damages provision! "Damages would be difficult to determine, so the parties agree that in the event of breach, buyer is entitled to recover $5,000" or something like that.

That would probably work.

I don't think you'll find many people selling cars who would be willing to sign something like that!

Like the earlier comments, the seller probably had some doubts about how serious the buyer really was. Anyone who has sold a car knows you get calls from people who will talk and talk, try to do "negotiations" over the phone, get directions from you and say, "I'll be right over to look at it!" then never show up.

Poor behavior by buyers doesn't justify the seller's behavior in this case, but it is not unreasonable to assume -- based upon my own experiences selling a few cars -- that any "offer" from someone who hasn't actually come out to look at the car yet is just that, an offer and not a contract.