Mason's New Car: Give A Court Opinion On Masons Case (Case Study Sample)

The Masons’ New Car Case
Name
Institution Affiliation
The Masons’ New Car Case
Arbitration is an alternative means of settling a dispute by impartial persons selected by the two colliding parties or as per a contract without proceeding a court trial. As par contract, the arbitrator or arbitrators can be selected either directly by court order or by can be from the American Arbitration society. On the question of whether the court should hear or dismiss this case, I support, it is not under any obligation to hear this case, nor provide its ruling, thus it should dismiss the case and direct the parties to a binding arbitration ; as the retail buyer’s order states. It is clearly stated that the masons did sign the document, and only chardonnay is seen to not have signed the retail buyers order. Thus, this means they did agree to the terms of the retail buyers order. The option for the arbitration is mandatory, as it was agreed in the contract that no one was coerced or tricked into, and thus the agreement was for binding arbitration whereby, the decision is binding amongst the feuding parties. And must be honored, including the award of damages (must be honored) and cannot be appealed to a court of law. This is a fair, cheaper and more economical process; thus a great way to settle such a minor dispute. Also, the option of a professional in the field of practice can be used to settle the dispute and thus could give a more professional and experienced ruling as compared to a magistrate court judge. Unless the masons can prove that there was fraud or unconscionability or something else that undermines the contract then the arbitration clause is not enforceable (Adrian 2010). 
In the response of whether there exists a contract between the Masons’ and M&G. It is true that there was an existing contract between the two parties. The masons did put pen on paper and signed the contracts that Hector the salesman had presented to them. Claiming there was no contract because there were no essential elements of the contract is unacceptable, because, in accordance to the law, all the elements of a contract were there. Firstly,there was an offer which were the services that Hector promised the Masons’ so as to ensure the later, acquired the new vehicle, secondly, there was element of acceptance which was in the signing of the contracts that the Masons were given by Hector. Thirdly, there were the intentions to be legally bound – the intention to enter into a legal binding is presumed, so the contract doesn’t have to state expressly that you understand and understand legal consequences to follow. Another fundamental principle of a contract is the parties capacities to understand what they were doing and since none of them was mentally incapacitated, or below eighteen years or under the influence of drugs. It means they all had the capacity to get the contracts. There was also a genuine consent, and as no one was coerced into the contract through undue influence, there were no mistakes that showed the parties agreed to different things. In addition, there was also no misrepresentation that is giving the wrong information by one party to the other before the contract was made, no duress, which is actual or threatened violence to enter into contract. Furthermore, there was a clear evident principle of consideration in the form of the old van that the masons gave Hector to sell and his agreement to do the services agreed upon by the Masons. And since the two parties had agreed to no price on the price of the van then the sale of the van was credible. Thus, the sale was of no breach of contract. Lastly the contract was legal with no illegal commodities being exchanged thus an existing valid contract.
A tort is a private or civil wrong or injury, including an action for bad faith, or breach of contract, for which the court will provide a remedy for damages (O'Connor 2013). A tort of conversion is the unlawful act whereby a person without authority does any act that interferes with the good title in the goods of the owner. This basically is whereby the plaintiff claims that the defendant exercised wrongful control over their personal property without the said person’s consent. Notably, the elements of conversion include, damages, the plaintiff’s right to possession ownership and the defendants conversion by wrongful acts (Adrian 2010).
Taylor v. Forte hotels intn’l 235 cal. App .3d 1119 shows that an individual may commit conversion by under certain conditions provided they do...