Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9456305" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I am asking ... please. When it comes to legal issues, can we stop making analogies? A lot of the law is very fact dependent. We can't just go around saying that something is just like something else because we want to dunk on people, when we don't fully understand the legal issues involved.Take this fact pattern. What state did this occur in (because there are very specific laws regarding cars in different states). Was there a requirement for a written contract? Is this a UCC issue? Is the oral contract binding, and if so, was the week a material term of the contract? If it wasn't binding, is there an issue in equity?Did the dealership tell the purchaser about the issue (okay, I know you want the car, but ya gotta sweeten the offer because we are supposed to hold it for a week)? Is this a fraudulent transfer under state law (since you can be considered a creditor of the car dealership until the week expires)? Did the new buyer purchase the car, or is it a bailment situation?There are so many possible issues and I haven't even begun to list them, and they aren't the same as the ones in the actual case.TLDR; we don't know enough facts about the actual situation to assess it fully from a legal point of view, which means that making analogies to things that aren't the same doesn't shed light. And that applies to people arguing on both sides. Absent more facts, we cannot make any assertions with certainty.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9456305, member: 7023840"] I am asking ... please. When it comes to legal issues, can we stop making analogies? A lot of the law is very fact dependent. We can't just go around saying that something is just like something else because we want to dunk on people, when we don't fully understand the legal issues involved. Take this fact pattern. What state did this occur in (because there are very specific laws regarding cars in different states). Was there a requirement for a written contract? Is this a UCC issue? Is the oral contract binding, and if so, was the week a material term of the contract? If it wasn't binding, is there an issue in equity? Did the dealership tell the purchaser about the issue (okay, I know you want the car, but ya gotta sweeten the offer because we are supposed to hold it for a week)? Is this a fraudulent transfer under state law (since you can be considered a creditor of the car dealership until the week expires)? Did the new buyer purchase the car, or is it a bailment situation? There are so many possible issues and I haven't even begun to list them, and they aren't the same as the ones in the actual case. TLDR; we don't know enough facts about the actual situation to assess it fully from a legal point of view, which means that making analogies to things that aren't the same doesn't shed light. And that applies to people arguing on both sides. Absent more facts, we cannot make any assertions with certainty. [/QUOTE]

Verification