Barker v. Pric

48 N.E.3d 367 (2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P contacted D about a van D had advertised for sale. The advertisement described the van as a 1994 Ford E-350. The advertisement promised a 'clean' certificate of title but did not indicate a sale price. P inspected the van. P orally agreed to purchase the van for $15,000. The parties then agreed in writing that P would make an immediate $2,000 deposit and D would provide P 'title by 4/14/14 or the deposit will be refunded in full. The deposit agreement described the van as a Ford E-350 but did not specify the model year. D provided a certificate of title, but the certificate indicated that the owner of the van was a third party. On the reverse side of the certificate, the owner appeared to have assigned her interest as a 'seller,' although the place for the purchaser's name was blank. The certificate also described the van as a 1993 model rather than a 1994 model. Barker refused to accept the certificate of title and demanded a refund. D refused to refund the deposit. P filed a small claim against D for breach of contract, which was later transferred to the court's plenary docket. D filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court entered summary judgment for D. The trial court concluded that the year of the van was not a term material to the deposit agreement because that 'agreement makes no reference to the year of the vehicle'; that P had accepted the van when he inspected it and paid the deposit; and that the certificate of title D tendered satisfied his obligation under the deposit agreement. P appealed.