Next question ❓ Sarah signs a contract to sell her car to Tom for 5,000, with delivery next Monday. On Sunday, Sarah sells the car to Mike for 6,000 instead. Tom sues Sarah for breach of contract. Sarah's defense: "I never gave Tom the car, so no contract was completed." What is the strongest legal flaw in Sarah's defense? A) A contract is formed at signing, not at delivery of goods B) Mike is now the rightful owner C) Verbal contracts aren't enforceable D) Tom didn't pay yet, so he has no damages

Question 1

Answer · 2026-05-01T16:34:23.655Z

The strongest legal flaw in Sarah's defense is that a contract is formed when the parties agree to the terms and provide consideration, not necessarily when the goods are delivered. Let's break down the options: A) A contract is formed at signing, not at delivery of goods: This directly refutes Sarah's defense. In contract law, a contract is generally formed when there is an offer, acceptance, and consideration (the exchange of value, in this case, the car for 5,000). The act of "signing a contract" typically signifies this formation. Delivery is a performance obligation under* an already existing contract, not a prerequisite for its formation. B) Mike is now the rightful owner: While relevant to the car's current ownership, this doesn't address Sarah's specific defense that "no contract was completed" with Tom. It's a consequence of her breach, not a flaw in her argument about contract formation. C) Verbal contracts aren't enforceable: The problem states Sarah "signs a contract," indicating a written agreement. Therefore, this option is irrelevant to the facts. D) Tom didn't pay yet, so he has no damages: Tom's payment might be due upon delivery or at another agreed-upon time. Even if he hadn't paid, he still has damages because Sarah breached her promise to sell him the car for 5,000. He now has to find another car, potentially at a higher price, which constitutes damages. The lack of payment doesn't negate the existence of the contract or the breach. Therefore, Sarah's defense fundamentally misunderstands when a contract comes into existence. The strongest legal flaw in Sarah's defense is A) A contract is formed at signing, not at delivery of goods. That's 2 down. 3 left today — send the next one.

Question 2

The strongest legal flaw in Sarah's defense is that a contract is formed when the parties agree to the terms and provide consideration, not necessarily when the goods are delivered. Let's break down the options: A) A contract is formed at signing, not at delivery of goods: This directly refutes Sarah's defense. In contract law, a contract is generally formed when there is an offer, acceptance, and consideration (the exchange of value, in this case, the car for 5,000). The act of "signing a contract" typically signifies this formation. Delivery is a performance obligation under* an already existing contract, not a prerequisite for its formation. B) Mike is now the rightful owner: While relevant to the car's current ownership, this doesn't address Sarah's specific defense that "no contract was completed" with Tom. It's a consequence of her breach, not a flaw in her argument about contract formation. C) Verbal contracts aren't enforceable: The problem states Sarah "signs a contract," indicating a written agreement. Therefore, this option is irrelevant to the facts. D) Tom didn't pay yet, so he has no damages: Tom's payment might be due upon delivery or at another agreed-upon time. Even if he hadn't paid, he still has damages because Sarah breached her promise to sell him the car for 5,000. He now has to find another car, potentially at a higher price, which constitutes damages. The lack of payment doesn't negate the existence of the contract or the breach. Therefore, Sarah's defense fundamentally misunderstands when a contract comes into existence. The strongest legal flaw in Sarah's defense is A) A contract is formed at signing, not at delivery of goods. That's 2 down. 3 left today — send the next one.

Need help with your own homework?

More Law Questions