[Templar]

Originally Posted by UMBC2015

Verbal contract.

Just read your other post.

You can bring up a verbal contract as your legal course of action, but good luck producing the evidence to support any contract in this case. A phone conversation that happened a month ago, not recorded, where now two people are telling two completely different stories, would not be proper evidence one way or another. Not to mention, you'd spend more in legal fees and whatever else than the deposit itself...

As you said in your other post, the OP stated he never said it was non-refundable. The money should be returned to the buyer, but saying it's the law isn't exactly true, as I don't think anyone would actually take this as a legal case (unless there was more evidence).

I think the saying goes: "An oral contract is as good as the paper it's written on."

[kits135i]

Originally Posted by Templar

What law are you trying to refer to? I'd like to see what you can come up with for a situation like this.

While I agree that the NICE and GENTLEMANLY thing to do would be to let him have his deposit back, I don't think the OP is under any LEGAL obligations to do so. This is a private party vehicle sale, where he did not specifically state the refund was refundable or not. No legal contract was done up from what I can see, so again he's not under any legal obligation. We're not talking about property like a security deposit.

UMBC2015 said it best. However, I don't need to come up with anything. This is basic law 101. You cannot just steal someone's money!

The ad is a LEGAL contract (at least in California it is) and the ad never stated NON refundable deposit. So unless he has an email BEFORE he paid the deposit and the buyer agreed it stating a NON refundable deposit, then he must return the money to the buyer.

[kits135i]

Originally Posted by UMBC2015

In my last post, I was merely suggesting that verbal contracts do exist, and if proper and sufficient evidence is provided, they are effective in producing a decision on a case. That being said, there is evidence that would point to the OP being in the wrong. A deposit was made, indicating a contract between two parties. There certainly must be evidence of that, unless cash was paid. Both parties agree that an exchange for goods was never made (clear evidence of this fact). There is evidence that it was not clarified whether the deposit is refundable. Therefore, if the buyer does not pay the remaining amount in the allotted time period, the seller must *legally* return the money, or else it is considered stolen. An exchange of goods was agreed upon, and not the amount of time or energy the OP wasted. Since the exchange was not made, and non-refundable was not indicated, the seller cannot *legally* keep the money.

This is my interpertation of the law concerning this instance, though I may be incorrect.

You are not incorrect. I just talked to my lawyer friend I have known for almost 20 years. This is in fact the law at least in California. He only practices in California.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by UMBC2015

In my last post, I was merely suggesting that verbal contracts do exist, and if proper and sufficient evidence is provided, they are effective in producing a decision on a case. That being said, there is evidence that would point to the OP being in the wrong. A deposit was made, indicating a contract between two parties. There certainly must be evidence of that, unless cash was paid. Both parties agree that an exchange for goods was never made (clear evidence of this fact). There is evidence that it was not clarified whether the deposit is refundable. Therefore, if the buyer does not pay the remaining amount in the allotted time period, the seller must *legally* return the money, or else it is considered stolen. An exchange of goods was agreed upon, and not the amount of time or energy the OP wasted. Since the exchange was not made, and non-refundable was not indicated, the seller cannot *legally* keep the money.

This is my interpertation of the law concerning this instance, though I may be incorrect.

I agree with everything you said, but the bolded part makes me wonder. The invoice wasn't specific, but we don't know what happened in the multiple "discussions" where the OP says he explained the process. Could that be the verbal agreement? I don't see there being sufficient evidence for that, based on the information we were given. The OP hasn't answered if he explained it verbally to the buyer or not, all he said was he didn't put it on the invoice.

I don't mean to be argumentative. I'm just expressing my opinion on verbal agreements and though I understand they can be legally upheld, it is very difficult to prove the existence in most cases (this being one of them).

Originally Posted by kits135i

UMBC2015 said it best. However, I don't need to come up with anything. This is basic law 101. You cannot just steal someone's money!

The ad is a LEGAL contract (at least in California it is) and the ad never stated NON refundable deposit. So unless he has an email BEFORE he paid the deposit and the buyer agreed it stating a NON refundable deposit, then he must return the money to the buyer.

You are over exaggerating quite a bit. The OP didn't steal the money, it was transferred legitimately for the deposit. If it's basic law, surely a google search will show that law very easily. So please show me the law, because I haven't found that law anywhere. He said it was posted on various sites, so what do the TOS of these sites say? They usually state if an ad on their site is considered a contract.

EDIT: Actually, reading more into it on the web a little, it says generally an advertisement is NOT considered an offer to enter a binding contract. Of course, this may vary by state (or website, as mentioned above), so you may be right.

But, OP is not in California, so your law may not apply to him and the buyer. Depends on the site. Or if they entered a verbal agreement (where the burden of proof comes in to play).

[Seminole]

From what I remember in my Business Law classes, SteveMD, regardless of what individual people think is the "right" thing to do, is entitled to some form of compensation.

SteveMD treated the deposit as a good faith effort to purchase the vehicle and as such removed it from the market, which meant he could have missed out on another potential buyer. If a price was agreed upon (which I assume it was) whether verbally or through e-mail a contract was created. Under the UCC, an offer can be accepted in "any medium and manner, which is reasonable." SteveMD had a contract to sell the car and now lost that potential sale. Under the UCC he (Steve) has an obligation to mitigate his damages by attempting to resell the car, but if he cannot sell it for an amount equal to the original deal or higher, then he has a recourse to go after the original buyer for the difference in lost profit. If he sells it for the same price or higher, he would have to refund the entire deposit and has no more recourse as he cannot become unjustly enriched. However, if the sale is less then the original offer price by more then the $500 deposit, he can still go after the original buyer for the difference.

And the transactions appears to meet the four basic requirements for a contract:

1) Mutual Assent - Both parties must manifest by words or conduct that they have agreed to enter into a contract. (The conduct in this case shows they had)
2) Consideration - Each party to a contract must intentionally exchange a legal benefit or incur a legal detriment as an inducement to the other party to make a return or exchange (Cash was exchanged and Steve incurred a legal detriment by removing the car from the market)
3) Legality of the Object - The purpose of the contract must not be criminal, tortious, or otherwise against public policy (It is not)
4) Capacity - Both parties must have contractual capacity (They do)

[Seminole]

Originally Posted by UMBC2015

Okay, the law doesn't work by virtue of "implication". What is implied, is irrelevant to the law.

There is a whole section of law about implied contracts, warranties, etc. So yes, what the parties are trying to imply based on their behavior is relevant to the law. The basic definition of an implied in fact contract is "a contract in which the agreement of the parties is inferred from their conduct".

[kits135i]

Originally Posted by Templar

I agree with everything you said, but the bolded part makes me wonder. The invoice wasn't specific, but we don't know what happened in the multiple "discussions" where the OP says he explained the process. Could that be the verbal agreement? I don't see there being sufficient evidence for that, based on the information we were given. The OP hasn't answered if he explained it verbally to the buyer or not, all he said was he didn't put it on the invoice.

I don't mean to be argumentative. I'm just expressing my opinion on verbal agreements and though I understand they can be legally upheld, it is very difficult to prove the existence in most cases (this being one of them).



You are over exaggerating quite a bit. The OP didn't steal the money, it was transferred legitimately for the deposit. If it's basic law, surely a google search will show that law very easily. So please show me the law, because I haven't found that law anywhere. He said it was posted on various sites, so what do the TOS of these sites say? They usually state if an ad on their site is considered a contract.

EDIT: Actually, reading more into it on the web a little, it says generally an advertisement is NOT considered an offer to enter a binding contract. Of course, this may vary by state (or website, as mentioned above), so you may be right.

But, OP is not in California, so your law may not apply to him and the buyer. Depends on the site. Or if they entered a verbal agreement (where the burden of proof comes in to play).

I am not "over exaggerating" at all. If the seller does not refund the buyers money then its stealing. I highly doubt any state has a law that says all deposits are non refundable. Also you are talking about verbal agreement. I still believe the court would side with the buyer. The seller has zero proof why he should keep the money. The only thing I can think of at all the seller could do is prove that he did spend some time from some request the buyer made and can possibly recoop some of it, but I just don't think that would fly over so well.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by kits135i

I am not "over exaggerating" at all. If the seller does not refund the buyers money then its stealing. I highly doubt any state has a law that says all deposits are non refundable. Also you are talking about verbal agreement. I still believe the court would side with the buyer. The seller has zero proof why he should keep the money. The only thing I can think of at all the seller could do is prove that he did spend some time from some request the buyer made and can possibly recoop some of it, but I just don't think that would fly over so well.

Nevermind, you obviously don't get it.

I do agree with you that the court would likely side with the buyer, since the seller typically has the responsibility of being specific in these types of agreements in most cases. The bolded statement is what Seminole was getting at.

[Seminole]

Originally Posted by Templar

I do agree with you that the court would likely side with the buyer, since the seller typically has the responsibility of being specific in these types of agreements in most cases. The bolded statement is what Seminole was getting at.

There are two different ways for the OP to recoup money, once is the difference in the lost profits between his eventual selling price and the agreed upon price by the buyer, but he also has a right to recoup his costs incurred in good faith before the buyer backed out, within reason.

Originally Posted by SteveMD

I jumped through hoops to enable him to get financing. I went to my credit union to get paperwork which I then had to fax and email - several times I might add, to his financing company, I took 3 hours off work to go to the DMV to get a copy of the title so that it could be similarly forwarded to his lender.

Based on that, whatever costs he incurred in having the CU pull the paper work, costs to fax the documents, DMV costs, as well as the 3 hours spent at the DMV can all be recouped. For the time spent at the DMV, he can charge whatever his normal hourly rate at work equals since he either forfeited his pay by taking 3 unpaid hours or he used up 3 hours of PTO that he no longer has the benefit to use.

It is likely a lot of hassle to go through and sue the original buyer for the difference in price, if any, there will be when he finally sells the car, but he is certainly entitled to recoup money for the expenses/effort incurred in good faith.

If I was the OP I would created an itemized report of costs, including the cost of his three hours, and present it to the buyer. If the total is less then the $500, he should refund the difference. If it is over, he should keep the full amount and state he won't request payment for the rest as a gesture of goodwill.

[secretsquirrel]

The fact that you said the transaction had to be completed in 30 days is enough for me to side with you (if its documented).

HOWEVER, the fact that there seems to be a lot of different views on this subject tells me that its not as clear cut as it is from my perspective. Like in baseball, tie goes to the runner. That being the buyer. In the end, he didn't get the goods and you can still sell it. It sucks considering you bent over backwards for the guy.

[will.c]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

I understand and it sucks you wasted your time doing all that. But at the end of the day it sounds like there was never a stipulation for a non-refundable deposit. I would consider it a lesson learned and be more stringent in the future.

In a nutshell, this is it.

If I may add one more, OP, the same concept - that you think you should be compensated for your time and efforts - should be applied to what you're gonna do now. Are you really willing to waste your valuable time to go through all this bullshit to attempt to get some $500?

[bumere90]

I had a similar situation.
The buyer paid me $300 and backed off.
Open a dispute, I replied in dispute saying the following:
The buyer made a non-refundable deposit for a car. He never completed the transaction.
Paypal decided in my favor