Surely here we have offer and acceptance. So why no contract?
Fear is wrong, for the reasons set forth by Gfactor. There was a contract.
OK, I will concede the contract, but how do you figure there are any damages? The buyer has all his money, and the seller has his merchandise. Where is the damage?
There are three kinds of contract damages:
- Expectation
- Reliance; and
- Restitution
See, e.g., http://www.west.net/~smith/damages.htm
What was descibed in **Peter Morris’s ** post is expectation damages. If you bargain for a good deal, and then the other party fails to deliver you can recover the benefit of your bargain from the the person you dealt with. In the law of sales (under article 2 of the UCC), we call the procedure “covering.” I need widgets for a project. I contract for them for $20 each for 400. The supplier doesn’t deliver. So I buy them for $40 each. I can recover the difference from the original supplier.
Also there are reliance damages. I buy a new widget from seller. In reliance on that, I scrap my old one (or I buy a swanky widget frame). Then seller does not deliver. I can sue for the detriment I have suffered by relying on seller’s promise.
And then there is restitution. I pay seller for the purchase. Seller doesn’t deliver. I get my money back.
Hope this helps. Contract damages is a fascinating subject.
Next week, the parol evidence rule, the perfect tender rule, and the objective theory of contract. Take notes–it’s on the exam.
You guys and your law school nonsense. None of this has any valid application in this situation, since the OP’s husband is not going to sue over this (at least, absolutely should not).
If the worry is that eBay might get all the money back and make him whole again, but the guy still lost out on the great price, he needs to “entice” the seller into fulfilling the deal (specific performance, for the bookworms).
-
File a complaint here: http://www.ifccfbi.gov/index.asp
-
Tell seller about it.
-
Profit!
And if you get that reference…
If the buyer does get his money back, you are correct that there might be no damages. But there might be, either under the circumstances discussed by Peter Morris and in certain other scenarios.
The analysis would work like this: Seller breaches by failing to send goods. Seller returns Buyer’s cash. If Buyer can replace the widget that he was contractually entitled to by puchasing it from another vendor for the same $$$, Buyer is made whole, and he has no case against Seller.
But what if the price of widgets has gone up, or the original deal was under market price? Then Buyer covers by purchasing another widget, but at a higher price. Then, Buyer has a claim against Seller for the price difference. (The extra $$ he had to pay seller #2.)
Here’s another possibility: Let’s say that Buyer is a car manufacturer. The widget is a necessary part for his assembly line, which is down. Seller’s failure to timely send the widget damages Buyer, because his assembly line remains down for an extra week before Buyer can get a replacement somewhere else. If Seller knew about this when the original deal was made, Seller might be liable for additional consequential damages if he breaches.
Cites: While the UCC does not cover every contract, it does cover the sale of goods. The principles I’ve listed above are found in UCC Sections 2-711 through 2-715.
That’ll teach me to allow interruptions from actual paying clients while I’m composing SDMB replies.
And Monkeyboy is right. If we’re talking about some $50 item, filing suit would be stupid.