DONOVAN V. RRL CORP.
26 Cal..4th 261 (2001)
NATURE OF THE CASE: RRL (D) advertised a used automobile for sale in a newspaper, but,
because of typographical and proofreading errors made by the newspaper, the advertisement
listed a price ($25,995) that was significantly less than the intended sales price
($37,995). Donovan (P) read the advertisement and, after examining the vehicle, attempted to
purchase it by tendering the advertised price. D refused to sell the automobile at that
price, and P brought an action against the dealer for breach of contract. The trial court
entered judgment for D on the ground that the mistake in the advertisement precluded the
existence of a contract. P appealed.
FACTS: In the Costa Mesa Daily Pilot, P noticed a full-page advertisement placed by D. It
clearly identified a specific vehicle and stated a price of $25,995. P visited a Jaguar
dealership that offered other 1995 Jaguars for sale at $8,000 to $10,000 more than the price
specified in D's advertisement. P went to D and saw the car. After a test drive, P offered
to purchase the car at the advertised price. When shown the advertisement, the salesperson
immediately stated, 'That's a mistake.' The sales manager also told P that the price listed
in the advertisement was a mistake. The sales manager apologized and offered to pay for P's
fuel, time, and effort expended in traveling to the dealership to examine the automobile. D
refused to sell the car at the advertised price. P sued D and at trial it was discovered.
that the employees of the Daily Pilot did not replace the description of the 1995 Jaguar
with the description of the 1994 Jaguar, but did replace the word 'Save' with the price of
$25,995. Thus, the Saturday, April 26, edition of the Daily Pilot erroneously advertised the
1995 Jaguar XJ6 Vanden Plas at a price of $25,995. The Daily Pilot acknowledged its error in
a letter of retraction sent to D on April 28. D was unaware of the mistake until P attempted
to purchase the automobile. In May 1997, D's advertisements in several newspapers listed the
1995 Jaguar XJ6 Vanden Plas for sale at $37,995. Defendant subsequently sold the automobile
for $38,399. The municipal court entered judgment for D. The court held that in the present
case there was no valid offer because D's unilateral mistake of fact vitiated or negated
contractual intent. The court made factual findings that D's mistake regarding the
advertisement was made in good faith and was not intended to deceive the public. P appealed.
The appellate department reversed the judgment on Vehicle Code section 11713.1, subdivision
(e). The advertisement constituted an offer capable of acceptance by tender of the
advertised price. The Court of Appeal reasoned that Vehicle Code section 11713.1,
subdivision (e), 'tips the scale in favor of ... construing the advertisement as an offer
....' The court disagreed with the municipal court's conclusion that D's unilateral mistake
of fact, unknown to P at the time he tendered the purchase price, precluded the existence of
a valid offer. D's failure to review a proof sheet for the Daily Pilot advertisement
constituted negligence that contributed to the placement of the erroneous advertisement. D
appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment