The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P alleged that in January of 1947, he entered into a contract with D, who operated a Chevrolet sales agency, whereby he agreed to purchase and D agreed to sell a new Chevrolet car for the list price, plus the usual and ordinary costs of handling, freight and accessories; that the defendant gave plaintiff a written order for the car, bearing the number '44', which showed the order of sequence in which plaintiff would receive the car; P deposited $100 to apply on the purchase price; and that the order of sale was signed by both P and D. In August, 1947, D advised P by letter that before D would deliver the new car, P would have to deliver a 'trade-in' car, for which he would be allowed the sum of $600, with the privilege of re-purchase at $25 per $100 over the trade-in allowance. D later notified P that his new car had arrived, but would not be delivered until P delivered his second-hand 'trade-in' car. P tendered the full purchase price and demanded delivery, but D refused to perform his part of the contract. P sued D. P alleged that he was unable to buy a new car like the one in question from anyone except a used-car dealer, and then only at a price of $2,500 or more, resulting in a loss of $709.49. P prayed for a restraining order prohibiting D from disposing of the new car, and for judgment requiring D to give him title thereto, and, in the alternative, for damages in the sum of $709.49 and the return of his $100 deposit, with interest, and for a $150 attorney's fee. P filed an amendment alleging that to obtain another car, he would incur great expense and inconvenience, because new cars were unique commodities at that time, and that he had no other way of receiving a new automobile or to be adequately compensated in an action at law. P asked for specific performance. D's demurrer was overruled. D alleged that the purchase order made a part of P's petition and dated January 21, 1947, was executed by the parties, but was in fact a transfer of a similar purchase order of a car by J. W. Whelchel, dated October 20, 1946, a copy of which was attached to the answer; that the Whelchel order, by error, bore the number '44', but was in fact No. 43; that Whelchel had a purchase order and deposit with D for a new car, which provided for a 'trade-in', and that P and Whelchel had made an agreement whereby P purchased the Whelchel order and deposit, and had directed D to transfer Whelchel's order and deposit to P; that P took the Whelchel order with full knowledge that it provided for a trade-in upon delivery of the new car. At trial, P claimed nothing was said about a trade-in; that he did not know Whelchel and never had any dealings with him, and never saw Whelchel's purchase order, and that its contents were never mentioned to him. The court found that the sale to P was a sale directly by D and that P did not buy any contract from Whelchel, but that P was simply assigned Whelchel's number by D, and that there was no 'trade-in' agreement. The court found that new cars were not available in the open market and could be purchased only at a risk on used-car lots from $2,300 to $2,600, and that P was entitled under the evidence to specific performance. P got the judgment, and D was ordered to sell and deliver the car to P. D appealed. D claimed that equity will not enforce a contract for the purchase of an automobile, because the remedy at law, by action for breach of contract, is adequate, and because the evidence here discloses a contract so indefinite and uncertain in its terms that equity will not grant specific performance.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.