Honda Car Forum

"Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote
Caroline wrote
> > I don't think we have enough facts to conclude this is simply a he
> > said/he said situation.
>
> What he/she said has nothing to do with this. As a matter of contract
> law, the contract rules supreme.

A contract may be oral or written.

If it was oral, then what he said/he said has everything to do with this.

> The contract most likely also states that any prior verbal agreements are
void.

When we know this is true, then I'll be happy to discuss this point.

> Now, if the original poster can prove (as a criminal or fraud action)
> that the dealer intentionally tried to mislead the customer with the
> intent to defraud, then he might have a legitimate action. But that
> is a whole different matter entirely,

No it's not.

> and fraud would require
> intentional, calculated acts on the dealers part, which from the
> poster's description admittedly did not occur,

He admits nothing of the sort.

> since the customer
> was not coerced into signing.

Bob claims he was misled into signing. The law does not at all necessarily
accept contracts signed by using deception.

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:31:16 GMT, Caroline <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> sayeth:

>A contract may be oral or written.
>
>If it was oral, then what he said/he said has everything to do with this.

You twit, the contract was written. There was NO ORAL AGREEMENT.

>> The contract most likely also states that any prior verbal agreements are
>void.
>
>When we know this is true, then I'll be happy to discuss this point.

Even if it didnt say it, the writeen contract always trumps any verbal
agreement unless there is ambiguity in the contract.

>> Now, if the original poster can prove (as a criminal or fraud action)
>> that the dealer intentionally tried to mislead the customer with the
>> intent to defraud, then he might have a legitimate action. But that
>> is a whole different matter entirely,
>
>No it's not.

Yes it is.

>> and fraud would require
>> intentional, calculated acts on the dealers part, which from the
>> poster's description admittedly did not occur,
>
>He admits nothing of the sort.

Yes he does. He admits signing the contract on his own accord, and
admits that he signed it because he wanted to get the deal over with,
not because it was a required part of the purchase of the car.

>Bob claims he was misled into signing. The law does not at all necessarily
>accept contracts signed by using deception.

He was not coerced into signing, and the poster admits this.

Stop posting this uneducated drivel, and go get an education.

--
Chris B.
furrier@iglou.com

"Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote
Caroline wrote
> >A contract may be oral or written.
> >
> >If it was oral, then what he said/he said has everything to do with this.
>
> You twit, the contract was written. There was NO ORAL AGREEMENT.

Fraud in the inducement.

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:25:01 GMT, Caroline <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> sayeth:
>"Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote
>Caroline wrote
>> >A contract may be oral or written.
>> >
>> >If it was oral, then what he said/he said has everything to do with this.
>>
>> You twit, the contract was written. There was NO ORAL AGREEMENT.
>
>Fraud in the inducement.

There was no fraud in the inducement if the customer was not coerced
into signing the contract. The details of the agreement were available
to the original poster at all times, and the poster admitted that
he willingly chose not to read the contract, and then signed his
acceptance of the WRITTEN contract as a willing participant.

There was no inducement.

--
Chris B.
furrier@iglou.com

"Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote
C wrote
> >"Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote
> >Caroline wrote
> >> >A contract may be oral or written.
> >> >
> >> >If it was oral, then what he said/he said has everything to do with this.
> >>
> >> You twit, the contract was written. There was NO ORAL AGREEMENT.
> >
> >Fraud in the inducement.
>
> There was no fraud in the inducement if the customer was not coerced
> into signing the contract.

We disagree about what is required for fraud in the inducement.

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 18:21:17 GMT, Caroline <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> sayeth:
>> >Fraud in the inducement.
>>
>> There was no fraud in the inducement if the customer was not coerced
>> into signing the contract.
>
>We disagree about what is required for fraud in the inducement.

We disagree because you are wrong. Some basic knowledge of business
and contract law would make this point evident to you.

I can't say for sure whether or not there was fraud involved, but
what is NOT disputed is the fact that the original poster willingly
signed the contract. He admits this fact outright.

--
Chris B.
furrier@iglou.com

"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bCUGc.11084$yy1.588@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> "Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
> > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote
> > > "Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> > > > > Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not
> > > > committing
> > > > > illegal fraud?
> > > > >
> > > > > That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem
to be
> > > > claiming
> > > > > it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a
contract, I
> > > > thought
> > > > > I'd point out: it cuts both ways.
> > > >
> > > > Verbal is always trumped by written. If its in writing, it doesn't
> > matter
> > > > what you were "told".
> > >
> > > You're wrong.
> >
> > In what state? According to NY State, no judge will take a verbal over
> > written.
>
> (Note: "Oral contract" is the preferred phrase for a contract achieved by
> speaking.)
>
> From dictionary.law.com:
>
> oral contract
> _____
> n. an agreement made with spoken words and either no writing or only
partially
> written. An oral contract is just as valid as a written agreement. ...

And I'm not disbuting that an oral contract is just as valid as a written
one, EXCEPT when a written one exists. An oral contract can come down to a
case of he said/she said. A written one is in black and white.
_____
>
> You can google and also find other supporting statements like:
>
> 1.
> "As a general statement of law... oral agreements can modify written
documents."
> [This site goes on to discuss the possibilities for a specific, real
situation.]
> http://www.rha-ps.com/q_and_a/oral_a...y_binding.aspx

Can is the key word. Hardly ever does is reality.

> 2.
> "Proof of an oral agreement that modifies a written contract should be by
clear
> and convincing evidence. Lambe-Young, Inc. v. Cook... "
>
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...als2004/&invol
> =030231-1

And the convincing evidence is? Especially in this case that started the
whole thread?

> 3.
> "See Stoddard & Son v. Vill. of N. Troy, 102 Vt. 462, 468 (1930) (oral
agreement
> may modify written contract not under seal or required by statute of
fraud)."
> http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/unpu...03/eo02375.htm
>
> I suspect in NY that only certain types of contracts must be in writing to
be
> valid and trump an oral agreement. If you feel otherwise, provide a
citation
> that says oral contracts may not amend written contracts.

And I never said his contract must be in writing. But in Bob's case, he has
"hearsay" vs. a written contract. Written wins.

> Despite this, let me say again that I am not optimistic for Bob. As we all
seem
> to agree, written contracts are preferred, if only because they better
document
> the terms of an agreement.
>
> People should avoid relying on oral agreements. The turmoil Bob is facing
> explains why.
>
> Still, I am not utterly without hope that Bob might have a case. It will
depend
> on the rest of the facts of the matter.

On 7 Jul 2004 15:17:23 -0400, furrier@iglou.com (Chris Bradley) wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 18:21:17 GMT, Caroline <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> sayeth:
>>> >Fraud in the inducement.
>>>
>>> There was no fraud in the inducement if the customer was not coerced
>>> into signing the contract.
>>
>>We disagree about what is required for fraud in the inducement.
>
>We disagree because you are wrong. Some basic knowledge of business
>and contract law would make this point evident to you.
>
>I can't say for sure whether or not there was fraud involved, but
>what is NOT disputed is the fact that the original poster willingly
>signed the contract. He admits this fact outright.

I've been listening to the to and fro of this argument and don't
really know who is right, but one thing is clear, you are not a
sincere debater. Your opinions are very black and white. You resort to
personal attack. You shout "you are wrong" without developing a clear
case to convince anyone that this is so.

Caroline on the other hand has kept a cool head and advanced balanced
and (IMHO) informed points of view. Thank you, Caroline.

H.

"Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 18:21:17 GMT, Caroline :
> >> >Fraud in the inducement.
> >>
> >> There was no fraud in the inducement if the customer was not coerced
> >> into signing the contract.
> >
> >We disagree about what is required for fraud in the inducement.
>
> We disagree because you are wrong. Some basic knowledge of business
> and contract law would make this point evident to you.

I disagree you have a handle on business and contract law, basic or otherwise.
<shrug>

You're talking like fraud in the inducement does not even exist.

> I can't say for sure whether or not there was fraud involved, but
> what is NOT disputed is the fact that the original poster willingly
> signed the contract. He admits this fact outright.

People willingly sign papers said to be contracts and that are subsequently
invalidated (on one grounds or another) all the time.

Willingness to put one's signature to paper hardly fulfills all the requirements
of a legal contract.

"Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
> "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:bCUGc.11084$yy1.588@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> > "Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote
> > > > "Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > > > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote
> >
> > > > > > Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not
> > > > > committing
> > > > > > illegal fraud?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem
> to be
> > > > > claiming
> > > > > > it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a
> contract, I
> > > > > thought
> > > > > > I'd point out: it cuts both ways.
> > > > >
> > > > > Verbal is always trumped by written. If its in writing, it doesn't
> > > matter
> > > > > what you were "told".
> > > >
> > > > You're wrong.
> > >
> > > In what state? According to NY State, no judge will take a verbal over
> > > written.
> >
> > (Note: "Oral contract" is the preferred phrase for a contract achieved by
> > speaking.)
> >
> > From dictionary.law.com:
> >
> > oral contract
> > _____
> > n. an agreement made with spoken words and either no writing or only
> partially
> > written. An oral contract is just as valid as a written agreement. ...
>
> And I'm not disbuting that an oral contract is just as valid as a written
> one, EXCEPT when a written one exists.

Not so.

> An oral contract can come down to a
> case of he said/she said. A written one is in black and white.

As I've repeatedly said, a written contract is preferable for many reasons, but
it does not necessarily trump an oral contract.
_____
> >
> > You can google and also find other supporting statements like:
> >
> > 1.
> > "As a general statement of law... oral agreements can modify written
> documents."
> > [This site goes on to discuss the possibilities for a specific, real
> situation.]
> > http://www.rha-ps.com/q_and_a/oral_a...y_binding.aspx
>
> Can is the key word. Hardly ever does is reality.

Whatever that means.

Sounds like you're conceding the point, anyway.

> > 2.
> > "Proof of an oral agreement that modifies a written contract should be by
> clear
> > and convincing evidence. Lambe-Young, Inc. v. Cook... "
> >
>
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...als2004/&invol
> > =030231-1
>
> And the convincing evidence is? Especially in this case that started the
> whole thread?

You're not reading me carefully.

I have repeatedly said that Bob's chances of winning a claim here are slim.

However, I would not say he has no chance of winning a claim here.

> > 3.
> > "See Stoddard & Son v. Vill. of N. Troy, 102 Vt. 462, 468 (1930) (oral
> agreement
> > may modify written contract not under seal or required by statute of
> fraud)."
> > http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/unpu...03/eo02375.htm
> >
> > I suspect in NY that only certain types of contracts must be in writing to
> be
> > valid and trump an oral agreement. If you feel otherwise, provide a
> citation
> > that says oral contracts may not amend written contracts.
>
> And I never said his contract must be in writing. But in Bob's case, he has
> "hearsay" vs. a written contract. Written wins.

We do not have all the facts.

BTW, you're using the word "hearsay" incorrectly.