Sedmak v. Charlie's Chevrolet, Inc.case brief summary

622 S.W.2d 694 (1981)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Defendant appealed an order of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis (Missouri) for specific performance in a contract case.

CASE FACTS

Dr. and Mrs. Sedmak (plaintiffs) discovered that Chevrolet intended to manufacture a small number of a limited edition Corvette, the Pace car. Dr. Sedmak contacted Charlie's Chevrolet, Inc. (Charlie's) (defendant) to inquire about the car and Kells, Charlie's sales manager, told him that a $ 500.00 deposit would be required. Mrs. Sedmak hand-delivered the deposit to Charlie's and received a receipt. While there, Mrs. Sedmak ordered upgrades to the standard equipment. According to Kells, he did order the upgrades, but ordered them because they would be better for the car, rather than because the Sedmaks wanted them. Mrs. Sedmak said that Kells told her that the car would cost about $15,000, but Kells denied discussing price. Kells notified the Sedmaks when the car arrived at Charlie's, but informed them that they could not buy it for the price quoted because there had been so much demand for it that the price had inflated. He also notified them that they could bid on the car, but they did not submit a bid. The Sedmaks filed a suit for specific performance in the trial court. The trial court granted specific performance. Charlie's appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals.

Rule of Law

DISCUSSION:

The Court affirmed holding that failure to specify the selling price did not render the contract void or voidable.

As long as the parties agreed to a method (retail price or going rate) by which the price was to be determined and as long as the price could be ascertained at the time of performance, the price requirement for a valid and enforceable contract was satisfied.

The court held that because there was no dispute as to quantity, part payment ($ 500.00 down payment) for a single indivisible commercial unit removed the oral contract from the Statute of Frauds.

The court held further that plaintiffs had no adequate remedy at law and, thus, were entitled to specific performance. (The car was unique one of only a few thousand so the car was invaluable and not to be found elsewhere).

CONCLUSION

The court affirmed, holding that (1) failure to specify the selling price did not render the contract void or voidable; (2) because there was no dispute as to quantity, part payment for a single indivisible commercial unit removed the oral contract from the Statute of Frauds; and (3) plaintiffs had no adequate remedy at law and, thus, were entitled to specific performance.

QUESTIONS:

What are the facts of the case?

I = As a result of these facts what are the legal issues to be decided? What are the legal arguments of the plaintiff/appellant and defendant/appellee)?

R= Explain the applicable Law which will be applied and used to decide the case

A= How did the court analyze the case?

C= How did the court rule? What was the outcome?

HINT: Defendant Charlie's Chevrolet asserted 3 specific defenses. You must discuss these and how the Court resolved each. Charlie's defenses were

(1) The existence of an Oral Contract is not supported by the credible evidence; (2) If an Oral Contract exists, it is unenforceable because of the Statute of Frauds; and (3) Specific Performance is an improper remedy because the Sedmaks did not show their legal remedies were inadequate.