Jeff wanted to sell his motor boat. He offered it to Sally for $3700.
Jeff knew that he intended to remove some special water skiing equipment from the boat, which he planned to give to his best friend, Roger, but he never mentioned to Sally anything about his intention to remove the equipment.
[Is his Subjective Intent an issue here?]
The ski equipment is very commonly found on this type of boat, and was worth about $375. It was very loosely secured to the top of the boat, but not bolted or otherwise permanently attached to the boat.
[Does commonly help Sally or Jeff? Or can both use it as an argument? (Yes, they both can!) And ask the same question regarding loosely attached]
Subjective Intent refers to a person's private thoughts and intentions, which may or may not be communicated to others. In this scenario, Jeff's subjective intent to remove the water skiing equipment and give it to his friend, Roger, is not explicitly communicated to Sally. Therefore, the issue of Jeff's subjective intent may arise in the context of the sale.
The fact that the ski equipment is commonly found on this type of boat can be utilized as an argument by both Sally and Jeff. Sally can argue that since the equipment is commonly included, she expected it to be part of the boat when she agreed to the price of $3700. On the other hand, Jeff can argue that since the equipment is commonly found, Sally should have been aware that it may be excluded from the sale.
Similarly, the fact that the equipment was loosely attached to the top of the boat can be used as an argument by both parties. Sally can argue that since the equipment was not bolted or permanently attached, it was intended to be included in the sale. Jeff, on the other hand, can argue that the loosely attached equipment indicates that it was not intended to be part of the boat and could be easily removed.
Ultimately, the interpretation of these factors and their relevance to the sales agreement may depend on the overall circumstances and the interpretation of any written or verbal agreements between Sally and Jeff.
Subjective intent refers to an individual's personal thoughts or intentions that may not be explicitly communicated to others. In this scenario, the subjective intent of Jeff is relevant because it involves the knowledge of his intention to remove the special water skiing equipment from the boat without explicitly informing Sally.
Regarding the commonly found ski equipment, both Sally and Jeff can use it as an argument, but it may have different implications for each of them. Sally can argue that since the equipment is commonly found on this type of boat, she reasonably assumed it would be included unless otherwise stated. On the other hand, Jeff can argue that the equipment's common presence implies that its absence should not have affected Sally's decision to buy the boat at the agreed-upon price.
Similarly, the fact that the equipment was loosely attached to the boat can also be used as an argument by both Sally and Jeff. Sally can claim that since it was not permanently attached, she may have reasonably assumed that it could be easily removed and therefore considered it as part of the boat. Jeff, on the other hand, may argue that the loose attachment indicated its temporary nature and implied its potential removal.
Ultimately, the interpretation of these factors will depend on the specific circumstances, any prior discussions or agreements between the parties, and potentially applicable laws or regulations.