Uniform Commercial Code
Uniform Commercial Code is a law that regulates the sale of goods, for instance, personal property such as land. The UCC makes business transactions enforceable by law. In this case, Plaintiff Polly is the owner of the 500 acres of land who then hires Defendant Dan, who fakes to be an expert in real estate. The misrepresentation by Defendant Dan as an expert in real estate is a fraud in law. Defendant Dan had never gone to school to acquire a certificate or degree as an expert but only acquitted his online video skills. Therefore done acting as a real estate expert is an illegal practice. Besides, Defendant Dan has never sold a single property. Any breach of contract by defendant Dan is then enforceable in a court of law due to misrepresentation. Dan also fraud misrepresents to be a licensed real estate agent. Practicing in the field as a real estate expert without a license is a criminal offense in law. Any contract entered by Defendant Dan with a third party on behalf of Polly would be invalid, and Dan would be liable for damages.
Defendant Dan misrepresents to Polly a standard agreement that charged Plaintiff Poly with twice the normal commission rate of an entry-level real estate. Polly has the right to sue for compensation in a court of law as the charges he paid to Defendant Dan were for an expert, not for a beginner in real estate. If the court found Defendant Dan guilty, Plaintiff Polly would be compensated.
Literacy limitations by Polly grant him a legal right of explanation from Defendant Dan on the contract agreement’s contents. Any misinformation by Defendant Dan on what the contact agreement stated would be enforceable in a court of law. The misinformation, “This form is just a formality,” grants Plaintiff Polly the right to sue for damages in a court of law. The misinformation by Defendant Dan made the Plaintiff sign the contract. Defendant Dan cannot use the signature sign-on contract to defend himself in a court of law as the Plaintiff is illiterate and was misinformed when entering into the contract.
Dan’s act of posting the Plaintiff’s Polly land on the market without a license is illegal. Polly has no consent that Dan is unlicensed. Dan also goes on and arranges the potential purchaser to meet Polly, but the purchaser never shows to the meeting. The potential purchaser is also a minor aged 17 years old. Defendant Dan goes to the potential purchaser’s home and intimidates the minor to sign the contract. The law requires a partner to enter into a contract willingly. Defendant Dan’s threats force the minor into the contract, and no consideration was made to make the contract valid. The minor’s action to terminate the contract in three weeks is legally binding as he was forced into the contract by Dan, and no consideration was made. The minor has no capacity to enter into a contract. The request by Polly to Dan of going on with selling the land is legally bidding though the contract agreement showed that the contract between Polly and Dan was complete when he connected Polly to the minor. The information on what was in the contract agreement by Dan to Polly was misguiding. Polly required clarity of what the contract agreement stated, but Dan took advantage of Polly’s illiteracy to persuade him to sign the contract. Polly has the right to sue Defendant Dan as a fraudster in the court of law due to the contract’s breach. Minor also has the right to sue Dan in a court of law as he was forced to enter into the contract. Dan’s force act also grants the minor the capacity to rescind the contract in three weeks.