Wheeler Vs. Jennings Breach of Contract Car Sale
On May 1, Jennings, a car dealer, e-mails Wheeler and says, “I have a 1955 Thunderbird convertible in mint condition that I will sell you for $13,500 at any time
before June 9. [Signed] Peter Jennings.” By May 15, having heard nothing from Wheeler, Jennings sells the car to another. On May 29, Wheeler accepts
Jennings’s offer and tenders $13,500. When told Jennings has sold the car to another, Wheeler claims Jennings has breached their contract. Is Jennings in
breach? Explain.
Sample Solution
In this case, Jennings is not in breach of the contract with Wheeler. In order to be legally binding, a contract must contain certain elements—namely offer and acceptance (Price &Miller 2017). Here, while Jennings emailed an offer on May 1st, there was no response nor any other form of communication from Wheeler until May 29th—nearly a month later. During that time, Jennings had every right to assume that the offer had been rejected or abandoned by Wheeler and so he sold the car to another buyer.
Furthermore, since it is evident from the email that a specific date of June 9th was included in the offer for completion of sale by both parties, one could argue that Jennings gave Wheeler an adequate amount of time to accept or reject his proposal before selling it to someone else. Therefore, in accordance with The Statute of Frauds—which states “an executory contract for the sale of goods worth $500 or more” must be made in writing—the verbal agreement between these two parties lacks enough evidence for enforcement as there was no written agreement (Touhey 2018).
Overall then, while there may have been some miscommunication between Jennings and Wheeler regarding this transaction leading up to its termination on May 15th due to non-acceptance by either party; nevertheless it appears that neither party breached any terms related to their initial agreement which ultimately renders them void.
With Love, Revenge
Retribution isn't an actual existence however a subject principally including show and different books. Subsequently, the most ideal approach to investigate retribution is to once in a while check the story close by. As a dramatization, the awfulness of retribution is principally character - driven, the intention of the character is straightforward: retaliation - under the name of adoration. Bel-imperia is looking for retribution on her darling, Andre. The thought process speaks to a cozy connection between certainty of misfortune and vengeance and love.
The subject of affection and retribution in Shakespeare's "Hamlet's Love" is one of Hamlet's most remarkable topics, however one preferred position - the intensity of vengeance advances Hamlet's adoration. I will vindicate the homicide of his dad. While Hamlet was befuddled, he discovered that his mom got hitched to his uncle not long after his dad kicked the bucket. Despite the fact that he didn't question the sudden passing of his dad soon he was as yet stunned. As Kenneth Muir stated, "He (Hamlet) was stunned by Gertrude.
Retribution is want for vengeance and fairness. At the point when the individual you love gets injured, that nature will vindicate. In any case, inaccurate conduct of these counter can prompt genuine results. In the awfulness of William Shakespeare 'Hamlet', Fortinbras, Hamlet, Lertes demonstrated that their craving for retribution unavoidably prompts misfortune. By losing somebody you love, Hamlet 's job has made it conceivable to make a move. The youthful Fortinbras established a military to restore the land lost by his dad to Hamlet and the lord.
Both Hamlet and Leltus added to the vengeance of the showy topic. Both of these characters love their dad definitely. That is the reason they are delivering retribution. Be that as it may, their adoration is misshaped, and now they want to fight back against the passing of their dads. Be that as it may, they treat it in different ways. Hamlet realized who murdered his dad, yet he didn't make a move right away. Rarthes was somewhat indistinct, which was the reason for his dad's passing, yet he quickly acted to vindicate him. "For heck, unwaveringness! Promise,
Retribution is the topic of this film. We saw this when Sook-hee promised to vindicate her dad's passing, her better half, and her retribution once more. Retribution is the explanation behind acquainting her with the universe of Assassin and helping her accomplish her objectives. It has become an endless loop of her. In some cases I see it influences her, however this is by all accounts the best thing knowing how Sook-hee does. She is carrying on a "typical" life and decided to render retribution while strolling. Despite the fact that it appears to be a toy of her destiny, Sook-hee settles on his own choice