Quote:
Originally Posted by milt
Seems to me that one would first have to prove that a profit potential was lost in order to argue about the difference in prices. If this buyer did not have a history of buying and selling cars for profit, what does "having one slip away" have to do with it?
I think getting the 500 back is sufficient. What bothers me is that this dirtbag supposedly needed money "desperately" for a new business. So desperate that he is apparently using the 500 PLUS the proceeds of the sale.
What kind of business is needing cash like that?  Better get the money before it all goes for his bail. |
You would have to prove that "profit potential." Again, that is usually done by expert testimony. The trier of fact hears the testimony from both sides, and believes there was profit or not.
In this case, the car was
actually sold for a higher price than the contract price. That's pretty compelling evidence that the car was worth more than the contract, and a decent measure of the true market value. Technically, you aren't proving "lost profit," that's too narrow. You are proving loss of the benefit of the bargain. So the buyer doesn't need to be a reseller.
The simple way of looking at it is this: The buyer is entitled to be put in the position he would have been in if the seller performed. If the buyer would have had a $15,000 car for $10,000, but the seller breached and deprived him of the benefit of the bargain, then the buyer has been damaged the $5,000 difference between the true market value of the car, and the brilliant deal that he negotiated.
That's the argument, anyways.
I agree with you, though. A small claims court is going to say those damages are too speculative, or find other reasons for not awarding them, and just award the $500.