The Masons’ New Car
The Masons’ New CarRuth HawthorneStrayer UniversityInstructor Cheri ReiserRevised: September 6, 2015After reading the case between the Masons and the car dealership R & G, I needed to determine whether a valid contract existed between both parties, and whether or not a Magistrate judge should hear the case. In this paper I tend to show that the Masons deserve to have their case heard, and that the contract was not valid. For a contract to be binding there should be an acceptance of an offer and signatures on every dotted line. An acceptance of an offer is done in two ways such as: acceptance through performance or acceptance by making a promise, that they will perform a task in future in regard to the deal (Levien, 2012). In this case, Hector promised the Masons a car that would not only suit their needs, but also put them in a comfortable position to pay their monthly installments. If a valid contract existed, then dealership would have a strong case against them. However, not only did Mrs. Mason not sign the Retail Buyers Order, but Hector failed to have the documents filled out to its entirety during the exchange of the new car and trade-in. Being that the Retail Buyers Order is the largest part of the dealership’s countersuit against the Masons, I came to the decision that it was invalid because it was not signed by both owners, and there never was a contract since the contract documents were not completed at the time they were signed.
I do not fully blame Hector for this big mix-up. I do believe that the Masons should share some of the burden of fault because they signed incomplete documents. Being of sound mind, I believe no one should sign blank papers. It gives the possessor of said documents the right to put whatever they want on it, and in this instance, the Masons did not use good judgment by not reading the requirements of the contract or Retail Buyers Order before placing their signature on it. Since they were not aware of what they were signing the contract in the arbitration clause may not be enforceable and the Retail Buyers Order should not be a factor in this case. (Campbell, 2002).  After reviewing the case, I came to the conclusion that the Magistrate court should listen to this case. Not only did R&G show signs of shady practices, but also committed the tort of conversion with the Masons’ van. Conversion is an unlawful act in which a person without any authority does any act that will compromise the ownership of a good or a property from a different person (Green, 2009). In this case, R & G was not entitled to ownership of the van and auctioned it without a complete contract between their dealership and the plaintiffs. The van belonged to the Masons and R&G did not have documents showing the transfer of the property to them. To further prevent the conversion, R&G should have stopped the transaction after finding out at the auction that the mileage was not consistent to what was indicated on the Odometer Disclosure Form. Lastly, R&G’s conduct excluded the owner from possession and use of goods. This is evident because the Masons were asked to pay for using the new car and not having their original car returned to them.