Frank was invited to a party at a friend’s home to watch the Super Bowl (football
game). He was so disgusted with the way his team was playing that he offered to
sell the first person who gave him a $1, his rare team jacket worth about $800. Jeff
gave him a $1, and Frank handed him the jacket. The next morning, Frank was very
upset about his jacket. Is there any LEGAL argument he can make in court to get his
jacket back? In your answer also discuss whether it makes a difference (and why or
why not) if any of the following events happened: (a) Frank drank lots of beer at the
party or he only drank coke, (b) Jeff had just arrived at the party when Frank made
the offer or he had been there the whole time, (c) Jeff and Frank were friends or
they had just met, OR (d) whether Jeff had paid the actual value of the jacket rather
than just a $1. Consider each of these events separately.
please and thank you
can somebody answer it for me please
I cannot answer all these questions. Perhaps you can discover some of the intricacies of sales law/contracts in some of these pieces:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4VRHB_enUS648US649&q=contract+law+%2f+private+sales+%2f+
thats not helping i need some answer please
In this scenario, Frank offered to sell his rare team jacket worth about $800 to the first person who gave him $1, and Jeff took him up on the offer. Frank regretted his decision and now wants his jacket back. Let's analyze the legal arguments Frank could potentially make in court, taking into consideration the different events you mentioned.
(a) Whether Frank drank lots of beer or only drank coke:
From a legal standpoint, Frank's alcohol consumption at the party is unlikely to affect his ability to make a legal argument. The focus would typically be on the agreement made between Frank and Jeff regarding the sale of the jacket, rather than Frank's state of mind due to alcohol consumption. So, in this case, Frank's choice of beverage does not make a difference.
(b) Whether Jeff had just arrived at the party or had been there the whole time:
The timing of Jeff's arrival at the party may potentially impact Frank's legal argument, specifically if there was any element of fraud or coercion involved. If Jeff had just arrived and Frank immediately offered to sell the jacket, it could raise questions about the genuineness of the transaction. However, if Jeff had been at the party for some time and had observed the jacket offer and subsequent exchange, it is less likely that Frank could argue fraud or coercion.
(c) Whether Jeff and Frank were friends or had just met:
The pre-existing relationship between Jeff and Frank could affect Frank's potential legal argument. If they were friends, Frank might argue that Jeff took advantage of their friendship and coerced him into the transaction. However, if they had just met, this argument would hold less weight, as there may not have been any pre-existing trust or reliance.
(d) Whether Jeff paid the actual value of the jacket or just $1:
The consideration (i.e., what is exchanged between parties) is a crucial element in any contract. In this case, the consideration was $1 from Jeff. Generally, courts assume that parties enter into agreements with the intention to create a legally binding contract. So, as long as both parties voluntarily agreed to the terms (Frank selling the jacket for $1), it is unlikely that Frank could successfully argue for the return of the jacket based solely on the disparity between the value of the jacket ($800) and the amount paid ($1).
In summary, based on the events described, it would be challenging for Frank to make a successful legal argument to get his jacket back. The key factors in determining the outcome would likely be the existence of fraud or coercion, rather than Frank's personal feelings, the timing of Jeff's arrival, their relationship, or the monetary value exchanged.