Case Study Tommy Vs The Car Dealer

In this case, Tommy would prevail against the car dealer. Tommy is a minor by the time he bought the car. According to the law, minor cannot enter a contract obligation. Because their contract are voidable, minors have the right, until a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority, to disaffirm or void their contracts (Kubasek 361). Therefore, Tommy can return the car to the car dealership with its present state and the car dealer should refund Tommy’s full payment. If the car dealer does not agree to refund the car payment, Tommy can file a complaint against the car dealer to recover his money. On the other hand, I think it’s unethical to return a car that was used for six months, has eight thousand miles, wear off tires and bent front

fender. Six months was too long to realize that is not the car he wanted. In addition, Tommy’s real intention is to have a reserve money for his education and not because he doesn’t like the car. It would be fair for both parties if they both agree to split the total purchase price instead of a full refund.

It was not clear how Greta signed the will and transferred all her estate to Gary Watson. Gary who was known for his reputation for womanizing spent most of the time with Greta. I will assume that Gary Watson was somehow persuaded Greta’s decision when she signed the will. Undue influence refers to those special relationships in which person takes advantage of a dominant position in a relationship to unfairly persuade the other and interfere with that person’s ability to make his or her decision (Kubasek 396). One of Greta’s children noticed that Greta is often forgetful and think that could be the reason why their mother wrongfully transferred her estate to Gary. Even if Greta’s children assumptions are correct, they do not have the legal rights in terms of successfully nullify their mother’s will. Greta, although she is forgetful is not suffering from a sickness that prevents her capability to understand. In addition, from a legal standpoint, a mother could exclude or disinherit her children if she wishes to. There’s no law that imposes parents to leave an inheritance to their children but in my opinion, it is unethical that the estate was given to Gary instead of giving it to her children like what her husband requested before he died.