Kim Baker filed several claims in a Massachusetts state court concerning his purchase of four 1960s-era racecars from Lilo Zicron. The parties, after engaging in mediation, agreed to a settlement. The terms required Zicron to sell three of the vehicles on a consignment basis according to a certain schedule and remit the proceeds to Baker. A 1969 Lola racecar was to be sold by October 20. On October 19, Zicron sent Baker a document purporting to be a purchase agreement. It require the buyer—which was a company owned partly by Zicron—to pay in three installments, with Zicron to retain possession of the car until the final payment was made the following March. The agreement did not mention passage of title, and no document of title for the car existed. Baker filed a complaint in court against Zicron, alleging that the purchase agreement did not constitute a timely sale. [Baker v. Zicron, 93 Mass.App.Ct. 1118, 107 N.E.3d 1254 (2018)] (See When Title Passes.) 

(a) Use the IDDR approach to consider the ethics of Zicron’s “sale” of the Lola.

(b) What are the legal arguments in support of the positions of the opposing parties in this case? Which is the most convincing, and why?