The concept of a breach of contract plays an important role in legal cases. In the literature on the subject, it is defined as one of the parties not being able to maintain its contractual obligations due to lacking the resources or performance capacity (Merkin & Saintier, 2019). Thus, the terms of a contract get violated, making it impossible to reach a win-win outcome. The given case between Cassie and Pearl features a scenario where Cassie had approved Pearl’s bid for $8,500. It became the point where the contract was formed, as it became Cassie’s obligation to provide Pearl with the required dress. Nevertheless, the expected $8,500 could not be provided because Cassie claimed to have sold the dress to Jade, meaning that the contract with Pearl was breached. In the case of not being able to respect the conditions of the contract, Cassie would be subject to legal action from the non-breaching party. For instance, Pearl could sue for different types of monetary damages, such as nominal, punitive, compensatory, or consequential.
On the other hand, the non-breaching party could also address additional types of remedies, such as Contract Restitution or Specific Performance. The latter would be the best choice for Pearl under the given circumstances, as she would get a chance to restore the exact bargain that was initially included in the contract (Eisenberg, 2018). Pearl would benefit from her non-breaching status, as her actions would be aimed at restoring justice and ensuring that the contractual agreement is respected by all actors involved in the contract. One of the potential issues with the case of applying the Specific Performance clause is that generally, contracts for the sale of goods are not signed unless the item is unique and no similar products are sold in the market (Davies, 2018). Given that the dress bought by Pearl was used in a movie and showcased in a museum, it can be considered a unique clothing item. It would not be available for sale anywhere else in the market because it was one of a kind.
At the same time, Pearl’s legal action against CARDWARE and Candie could be refuted by the latter. The primary reason for it would be the inexistence of a contract being formed at all. It is known from the case files that Cassie smiled and nodded at Pearl, which does not stand for a contract being formed. Even though the bid was acknowledged, it was not accepted legally, meaning that Cassie only recognized Pearl’s willingness to buy the dress and never agreed to sign the contract implying the bid of $8,500. As per Legal Information Institute (n.d.), a sale by auction is complete when the auctioneer announces the sale “by the fall of the hammer or in another customary manner.” Knowing that Cassie never acknowledged the dress being sold to Pearl by the fall of the hammer or in any other customary manner, it can be safe to say that the contract between the two parties was not formed. This creates enough room for Candie and CARDWARE to maintain a consistent defense against Pearl’s claims regarding the breach of contract.
It should be noted here that one of the possible outcomes of the case would be Candie arguing that the dress was never sold to Pearl since there was no contract formed validating the sale. The absence of a legal contract would lead to the majority of obligations related to how Cassie should have sold the dress to Pearl for $8,500 being annulated. Additionally, it would also dissuade the application of the Specific Performance clause in court. The core issue that will have to be addressed by both parties is the inexistence of an announcement that the dress had been sold to Jade. Therefore, the bidding remains open because none of the parties legally purchased the dress being announced by the fall of the hammer or in any other customary manner. Parties involved in the case could be interested in purchasing the dress for the highest bid to settle the disagreement. Since Pearl’s bid of $8,500 was acknowledged by Cassie, it could be considered the highest bid at the time.
Ultimately, Pearl was not able to purchase the dress for $8,500 because Jade offered an additional bid of $500 after Pearl settled for her bid of $8,500. This means that a breach of contract would occur due to Cassie not respecting the conditions of the contract that she had signed when she acknowledged Pearl’s bid. The Specific Performance clause could be brought forward in court since the dress is unique and cannot be bought or sold anywhere else. Nevertheless, Candie and CARDWARE could refute Pearl’s statement by claiming that the contract was never formed. There was no fall of the hammer to announce that the dress had been sold to anyone, including Pearl. Based on the findings from the case, it can be safe to say that Pearl could succeed in court after filing for Specific Performance and breach of contract.
References
Davies, P. S. (2018). JC Smith’s law of contract. Oxford University Press.
Eisenberg, M. A. (2018). Foundational principles of contract law. Oxford University Press.
Legal Information Institute. § 2-328. Sale by Auction.
Merkin, R., & Saintier, S. (2019). Poole’s textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press, USA.