1. Jack has to decide whether to engage an attorney. What would you advise? I would advise jack not to engage an attorney in the case. First, the fact that the old woman who sold the china shows signs of Alzheimer is enough to nullify the contract. A person can only get into contract if they are understand the terms and are considered to be competent. A person engaging in a contract should be able to understand all the ramifications, something which the old woman might not have understood (Chen-Wishart 41). Moreover, she sold the china at a very low price when compared to its value, and this is evidence enough that she did not understand what the china’s really value is and these might be signs of the disease.
2. Was there a valid contract when Jack purchased the china for $150.00. Why or why not? Did Jack’s superior knowledge prevent formation of a contract? How might the widow’s age or possible medical condition affect contract formation There was a valid contract during the time of sale because the two parties agreed on the price and the payment was done. Nevertheless, the contract can be easily reversed on the basis that one of the parties was incapacitated to engage in any legal agreement.
Initially, jack did not have knowledge on the condition of the woman, but this is not evidence enough for him to win the case (Cibinic et al 62). The widow’s age should however have been enough alarm to show him that she did not have knowledge regarding the value of the product. As a result, jack should not have taken this to his advantage and bought the china at a price which was very low. Moreover, he should have accepted the initial offer made by her daughter, since this would have been profitable for him instead of engaging in a law suit.
3. What is the likelihood that the daughter’s suit will succeed? State your reasons. Is contract rescission a potential remedy? Why or why not? Is an award of monetary damages an adequate remedy? Why or why not? There is a likelihood that the daughters suit will succeed, based on the facts of the case. First, one of the parties was incapacitated to engage in a contract, and this meant that there was no recognizable contract.
Moreover, the value of the china indicates that jack has taken the woman’s condition to his advantage and gave a price which was very low (Dawson 73). Contract rescission would be the possible remedy in this case, because the woman had willingly sold the china at a throw away price, and just like any other business man jack would not have refused to purchase it. Awarding the monetary damages is however not a possible remedy because there was no criminal act entailed in the contract, and jack did not have prior knowledge of the woman’s condition.
Chen-Wishart, Mindy. Contract Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print. Cibinic, John, Ralph C. Nash, and James F. Nagle. Administration of Government Contracts. Washington, D C: George Washington University, National Law Center, Government Contracts Program, 2006. Print. Dawson, John P. Cases on Rescission of Contracts and Restitution at Law and in Equity. Ann Arbor, Mich: Brumfield & Brumfield, 1934. Print.