Business Law




The case inquestion highlights a complex scenario whereby a motor vehicle wassold upon the expression of interest from two parties. Sean Sonorousowned a classic 1972 Cadillac automobile in perfect workingcondition. Tim Timonious and Jim both express interest in buying thevehicle. Although both Tim and Jim pay for the vehicle at differenttimes, none of them can use the car. A combination of factorscontributes to the emergent situation. All of the parties arecriminally liable and require legal advice.

As the seller ofthe vehicle, Sean bears the most responsibility for the outcome ofthe case. Sean failed to issue a due notice to either Jim or Tim atthe time that he made agreements with both of them. The GeneralMotors v. White case established the precedent of issuing five days`notice before proceeding to resale (General Motors AcceptanceCorporation Ltd. v. White, 1973). Sean did not issue Jim any noticebefore reselling the car to Tim. Therefore, he faces legal liabilityfrom Jim based on this precedent.

Sean could alsoclaim money back from Tim. Tim had the full opportunity to inspectthe vehicle before purchase. He had noticed no problems with the carduring the drive he took along with Sean. The Imough v. Guitard caseestablished that buyers had no claim to compensation if they failedto verify the functionality of a motor vehicle (Imough v. Guitard,2005).

Tim was the firstto express interest in purchasing the motor vehicle. He firstmentioned his interest on 25th March through a phone call.However, he made a binding agreement through a letter sent on 26thMarch. Since Jim started his payments on 27th March, Timcould sue Jim to challenge his claim to the vehicle. Furthermore, Timpaid the full amount on 9th April, two days before thecheque written by Jim would be payable to Sean. Jim could also sueTim for destroying his vehicle. The Ronak v. Jones case ruled thatthe return of a vehicle and payment of damages would not suffice toguarantee re-certification (Ronak v. Jones, 1995). Based on thisruling, the responsibility of repairing the damage to the vehiclefalls to Tim.

Jim had made adown payment of $200 in cash to Sean on 27th March. Healso wrote a cheque on the same day that would be payable to Sean on11th April. In this regard, Jim could sue Sean for failingto honor their understanding. The acceptance of the $200 by Seancould be interpreted as a sign of good faith. Therefore, Jim had theright to expect that Sean would wait for the maturity of the cheque.The 6378 v. Registrar case required a motor vehicle seller to makefull disclosure of all factors of the vehicle at the time of sale(6378 v. Registrar, Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002). The conditionof a vehicle was one of the most important factors to reveal beforeselling a car to a prospective buyer. Sean could also sue Jim sincehe had not bought the car in good faith. Jim had noticedunreliability on the part of Sean. Nevertheless, he still insisted onpurchasing the vehicle. The Larsen v. MacDonald case established thatsellers would not be held liable if the buyer failed to act in goodfaith (Larsen v. MacDonald, 1976). Sean had offered to return thefull amount of money remitted by Jim. However, Jim had turned downthe offer.


The caseinvolving Sean, Tim, and Jim presents legal complications worthy ofconsideration. Sean could sue Tim for failing to fulfill duediligence. On the other hand, Jim could sue Sean both for failing todisclose the actual condition of the vehicle and also for resellingwithout due notice. Tim could also sue Jim in claiming legalownership of the vehicle. Jim could also sue Tim for failing torepair the car.


6378 v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, 2012 CanLII 50177(ON LAT) Retrieved from:

General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Canada Ltd. v. White, 1973ALTASCAD 10 Retrieved from:

Imough v. Guitard, 2005 NBQB 294 (CanLII) Retrieved from:

Larsen v. MacDonald, 1976 CanLII 240 (BC SC) Retrieved from:

Ronak v. Jones, 1995 CanLII 9244 (AB QB) Retrieved from: