Mr.Wiggles

[MR 325]

This thread is OVER.

I encourage you all to start a new (positive) feedback thread for Jon.

[karzrtoyz]

Bought lots of stuff from Jon and have sold many things to him as well.

Stand up guy, items always as described. Never had an issue.

Clean transaction every time.

[GUERONASTY]

Hey Jon the car with the wheels in question are on craigslist. Pretty funny looking e30....http://sandiego.craigslist.org/nsd/cto/3725146563.html

Why you gotta hate? FYI that's how I got the car from him just lowered and two wheels are new. If you don't know don't speak!

[Wild Ride]

Hey Jon the car with the wheels in question are on craigslist. Pretty funny looking ad....http://sandiego.craigslist.org/nsd/cto/3725146563.html

[Dozyproductions]

Jon, set age limits with the people you do business with? ;) Meh, that wouldn't work either would it lol.

[sterlingsilver]

Not jons account op. Im sure a few guys on here know me i used to go to the meets in sd when i lived there shit you can even swing by dynotech up in vista and se my slammed s52 eta. Even though there old it isnt a budget minded college dd. As far as your forum point system i use the site for info and occasional parts and dont really care. what are you going to bring up fb friends? Grow up, get a job, and learn some accountability.

[travish325]

I was expecting this to be another one of those transactions threads where the op got screwed over and the other guy would just disappear. But after reading this I dont feel sorry for the op cause hes a moron lol Grow up and be more responsible. My 2 cents wasnt needed but I thought I would just add that this Mr. Wiggles guy seems legit.

as stated before, dont make deals you cant afford. Bet you wont do that again after this ;)

[ramielm]

haha I gotta keep it gangsta and know my rights!

[Mr.Wiggles]

So sue him for my wheels??? I dont wanna sue him, I just want him to finish what he started!

@Ramielm- Wait didn't you post you were gonna stab someone???LOL!

[ramielm]

Now class, onto CONTRACT law...


CONTRACTS

what is a contract?
a promise or set of promises, for breach of which the law gives a remedy. or the performance of which the law in someway recognizes as a duty.

what law applies?
first question to ask...common law governs contracts, with one exception. Contracts for the sale of goods(personal property)
if it is for the sale of goods, use UCC

Purpose of UCC, is to make contracts enforceable.

3 types of contracts
Expressed Contract
formed by language; oral or written
Implied Contract
formed by manifestations of a sent other than oral or written language;
by conduct.
Quasi Contract
construed by courts to avoid unjust enrichment by permitting the plaintiff to bring an action to recover the amount of the benefit conferred on the D.

Bi-lateral & Uni-Lateral

Bilateral
promise for a promise. each party is promisor and promisee.

Unilateral
acceptance by performance. the offer requested performance rather than a promise. ex:pays upon the completion of an act. 1 promisor & 1 promisee.



elements of contract formation - 4 parts to a contract : mutal ascent, consideration,

mutual ascent
= offer + acceptance; an agreement to the same bargain at the same time. reached through negotiation. a party makes proposal, other party agrees and that is acceptance. Courts use objective measure, by which each party is bound to their apparent intention as manifested to the other. The offer creates a power of acceptance in the offerree. for a communication to be an offer it must create a reasonable expectation in the offerree, that the offoror is willing to enter into a contract on the basis of the terms.

How do you tell if this communication creates reasonable expectation?

-There has to be an expression of a promise, undertaking or commitment to enter into a contract.

-Was there certainty and definiteness in the terms?

-Communication of both previous terms to offeree.


termination of an offer- when an offer is made, power of acceptance is made in offeree, power of acceptance ends when offer is terminated. the mutual ascent requirement can not be met where the termination occurs before the acceptance is effected. There is different ways that offers can be terminated
termination by acts of parties - termination by acts of offeror(revocation) a revocation is the retraction of an offer by the offeror. a revocation terminates the offeree’s power of acceptance, if it is communicated to the offeree before the offeree accepts. revocation is effective when received by offeree. limitations on offeror’s power to revoke; offers not supported by consideration or detrimental reliance can be revoked at will by the offeror, even if the offeror has promised not to revoke.certain situations where this power is limited;

options-a distinct contract, in which the offeree gives consideration for a promise by the offeror not to revoke an outstanding offer.

Under the UCC there is FIRM OFFER RULE - offer by a merchant, to buy or sell goods, in a signed writing, that by its terms gives assurances that it will be held open, is not revokable for lack of consideration during the time stated or if no time is stated, for a reasonable time not to exceed 3 months

Detrimental Reliance - where offeror can reasonably expect that the offeree would rely to his or her detriment on the offer it will be held irrevocable as an option contract for a reasonable length of time.

Termination by an Offeree; Rejecting the offer
Expressed Rejection- saying NO
Implied Rejection - counter offer

distinguish mere inquiry-does not terminate offer when it is consistent with idea that the offeree is still keeping original proposal under consideration.

Rejection is effective when received by offeror.

If an offer is rejected, offeror may restate same offer and create new power of acceptance. offeree must accept within time period specified, if not within then, within a reasonable time.

Termination by operation law
termination by the death or the incapacity of one of the parties; does not have to be communicated

destruction of subject matter -

termination by supervening legal prohibition of proposed contract - if subject matter becomes illegal, contract is terminated.

Acceptance to an offer
if the offer requests performance from an unlimited number of persons. performance by any one of them will cut off the power of acceptance to anyone else.

offerree cannot assign their right to accept

if offeree adds or changes terms, it is rejection and counter offer.
3 situations under common law rule for acceptance
-statements that make implicit terms explicit is still acceptance
-grumbling acceptance
-request for clarification

consideration read the part carefully, and look into it more if you (guerrero) feel that you can make the argument that there wasn't consideration by Both parties and only by YOU.


Bargained for exchange in legal position between the parties. constitutes valuable consideration. only the presence of valuable consideration on both sides of the bargain will make a contract fully enforceable from the moment of formation.
consideration is the price for enforceability in the courts.

elements required for consideration
must be a bargained for exchange between the parties
that which is bargained for must be considered of legal value, must constitute a benefit to the promisor, or a detriment to the promisee

bargain for exchange- this element of consideration requires that the promise induced the detriment and the detriment induced a promise. Unless both of these elements are present, you do not have a bargain for exchange. if either parties intend to make a gift then he or she is not bargaining for consideration, and that element will not be met. an economic benefit is not required.
benefit and detriment - a detriment is promising doing an act that you are not otherwise legally obligated to do, or a forbearance; to not do something that you are otherwise legally entitled to do. consideration has to be looking forward from the day of the agreement. past consideration is not sufficient.

legal value - to give consideration the promisee must do or agree to do something he had no duty to do, or vice versa(act or forbearance). need not have any economic value. it’s not essential that the promisor personally derive any value from the promisee’s promise.
courts will not inquire into the adequacy of consideration. in addition where there is even the possibility of value in the bargain for act, the courts are going to find that the consideration is adequate, even though the value never comes into existence.

the majority of jurisdictions still adhere to the view that detriment to the promisee in performing an act or making a promise is the exclusive test for consideration. a significant minority view says that if either party has a detriment or a benefit to the other party it will suffice.
legal detriment to the promisee results if the promisee does something he is under no legal obligation to do, or refrains from doing something that he has a legal obligation to do. it is important to remember that the detriment to the promisee need not involve any actual loss to the promisee or benefit to the promisor.

a legal benefit to the promisor is the reverse side of legal detriment . it is a forbearance or performance of an act by the promisee which the promisor was not legally entitled to expect or demand but which confers a benefit on the promisor.

pre-existing legal duty - the promise to perform or the performance of an existing legal duty will not be sufficient consideration.
exceptions - if the promisee has given somethign in addition to what she already owes in return for the promise that she now seeks to enforce, or has in someway agreed to vary. usually immaterial how slight the change is.
modification situtation - if the parties agree to modify their contract consideration is usually found to exist, where the obligations of both parties are varied. a modification solely for the benefit for one of the parties is unenforceable except for a UCC.
a promise to perform a voidable obligation is enforceable despite their being no new consideration. a minors ratification of a contract upon reaching majority is enforceable without new consideration. as is a defrauded persons promise to go through with the tainted contract after learning of the fraud.
pre-existing duty owed to a third party - traditionally the courts held that a new promise did not constitute consideration but the modern view,majority, holds that the new promise does constitute consideration.
if there are unforeseen circumstances, mere unforeseen difficulty in performing is not a substitute for consideration, but where the unforeseen difficulty rises to the level of impracticability such that the duty of performance would be discharged most states would hold that the unforeseen difficulty is an exception to the pre-existing duty rule.

under the UCC, an agreement modifying a contract for the sale of goods needs no consideration to be binding so long as both parties are acting in good faith.

[Mr.Wiggles]

looks like nothing is getting resolved... please get that sig taken care because i have done nothing wrong and your statements even said you wanted these wheels. Happy or not I didnt do anything wrong.. Your wheels have been here to be picked because i need the space! END OF STORY.

[turge]

I am so confused...

Well it's all up the OP on what he wants to do, then it's up to the other party involved from there. I'm just regurgitating information which I learned from my Business Law class this week. Law can be fun. lol

[ramielm]

I am so confused...so much legal jargon here haha.. Here are some notes that can prove helpful here, and will benefit both parties. These came straight from a business law book I read for school, and from my professors mouth.

DEFAMATION
not personal injury. harm to one’s reputation or one’s dignity. derived in great britain, developed to protect one from insult against honor or integrity.

elements of defamation:

1.defamatory statement-false defamatory statement of purported fact. In order to be actionable statement must intend to be injurious to the plaintiffs reputation. Plaintiff must prove the statement would be deemed defamatory by at least a substantial and respectable group of persons. Truth is an affirmative defense, which the defendant has the burden of proving. If the statement deals with public interest or public concern plaintiff must prove that it was false. Statements of opinion are not actionable. statements which constitute rhetorical hyperbole or name calling are not actionable.
comedy routines, films and shows-3 ways to look at it. Look at content...if it was in a comedy show, just let it go...or look at both ways.

2.of or concerning the plaintiff-recipient must understand that the defamatory statement refers to the plaintiff. group defamation-membership in a defamed group numbering more than 25 is insufficient to prove the statement was of and concerning an individual member. Works of fiction-reasonable person reading the book would understand if the fictional character would understand if it is a real person. defamation of a deceased person is not actionable.

3.publication-the statement must be published by the defendant to at least one other person. the meaning of the statement and the plaintiff’s identity must be communicated to the recipient or recipient’s of the statement. the statement does not have to be believed by the recipient to be actionable. If the plaintiff publishes the statement, the defendant is not responsible for it.

4.harm to the plaintiffs reputation-there are presumed damages, state law has presumed that person has been injured, the plaintiff is not required to prove damages. Under traditional approach it is presumed you are injured by defamation. Sometimes have to show exact loss that has occurred due to defamation. Under slander there is an exception where you do not have to prove special damages.
Slander Per Se-
stating somebody has been in serious criminal wrongdoings
statement involves wrongdoing in one’s trade, business, profession, or office.
when you state that someone has a loathsome disease.(usually highly contagious and/or sexually transmitted)
when accuse anybody of unchastity or serious sexual misconduct.
Some states do not permit punitive damage awards against media defendants.


California Civil code 45-defamatory statement is one that exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule which causes him to be shunned or avoided or which injures him in his occupation.
Affirmative defenses available to defendants of defamation
truth
absolute privilege-judicial privilege, participants in a judicial proceeding can not be sued for defamation. the privilege applies to any communication
1)made in judicial or quasi judicial proceedings- trial hearing or deposition,
2) by litigants or other participants- covers parties, attorneys , witnesses, judge, any participant in judicial or quasi judicial proceeding
3)to achieve the objects of litigation-can’t be anything somebody says in judicial or quasi judicial procedding will be covered, has to be related to case.
4)that has some connection or logical relation to the action.
statements about exisitng or anticipated litigation by the party or the parties attorney to the news media is not privileged.
legislative privilege-anything said on the floor of the house or senate, can not be liable for defamation.

conditional privilege-
fair comment-a right to express opinions about public officials, scientists, artists, composers, performers, authors or anybody who places themselves or their work in the public eye.
the common interest privilege-
fair reporting-factual journalism

3 ways for the plaintiff to overcome privileges
scope of the privilege has been exceeded - upon a showing of personal malice (absolute privilege can not be overcome, only conditional.)

[turge]

Will do bud.

And do you want to know how I will know if you've read it or not? If you read the UCC I can guarantee that you would learn that you are at fault in this situation. There is no way around it.

If you still have the same opinion, you either read it and were ignorant about it, you didn't read it thoroughly, or you just didn't bother reading it all.

Your just lucky Jon is a nice guy. Give the man back his rims and go through with your original deal. If the rims are damaged, you can be held liable and other factors can come into play. If you refuse to give him his rims, he can legally keep that $200 and would have the option of going after you for the rims. Just FYI.

[Mr.Wiggles]

Calm down there judge judy no ones going to court.

LMAO!!! sorry had to..