This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Sedmak v. Charlie's Chevrolet, Inc.: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief | court = Missouri Court of Appeals | citation = 622 S.W.2d 694 (1981) | date = 1981 | subject...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| joined_by = | | joined_by = | ||
}} | }} | ||
<u>'''FACTS:'''</u> | <u>'''FACTS:'''</u> | ||
* Sedmak (P) owned 6 Corvettes → car enthusiasts | * Sedmak (P) owned 6 Corvettes → car enthusiasts |
Revision as of 03:28, October 23, 2019
Sedmak v. Charlie's Chevrolet, Inc. | |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
---|---|
Citation | 622 S.W.2d 694 (1981) |
Date decided | 1981 |
|- cellpadding="10" border="1" ! |written by Satz |- FACTS:
- Sedmak (P) owned 6 Corvettes → car enthusiasts
- Magazine article published in 1977 in which Chevy announced it was producing 6,000 ltd. Corvettes → P asked Tom Kells, manager of Charlie’s Chevy (D) about availability of the car
- Tom said he would check as he did not know, and if they were to receive one, P could purchase it
- January 1978, P puts $500 deposit on car → D gives receipt indicating such
- Special ordered with changes to stock options on car; confirmed and ordered by Kells
- Kells informed P approx. price was $15k, but was not sure exactly due to P’s changes to stock model
- Said contract would be sent, but none ever was
- Late January 1978, no pace car still, allowed dealership to keep it in showroom until after Indy 500
- Car arrived in April, Kells said they had to bid on the car and the price was way up due to demand → P sued for specific performance
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
- Trial Court decreed specific performance; denied D’s contention that contract price was indefinite and that contract was valid under Statute of Frauds due to the receipt given to P → D appealed
- Specific Performance lies within discretion of trial court → discretion is narrow; no adequate remedy at law for P due to uniqueness of car
ISSUE(S): Is P entitled to specific performance on the oral contract with Charlie’s?
HOLDING: SATZ: Yes.
ANALYSIS:
- The nature of the appearance, mileage, and condition of the pace car fell within UCC 2-716(1) under “proper circumstance” as to grant specific performance
- Short supply, great demand of care created the proper circumstance as well → it could not be recreated without considerable expense, delay, and inconvenience
- Failure to specify an exact selling price does not render the contract voidable
- Because there was no dispute as to the quantity, part payment for a single indivisible commercial unit removed the oral contract from the Statute of Frauds
- Ps had no adequate remedy at law and were entitled to specific performance
FINAL DEPOSITION: Affirmed.