"Enforceable", that term takes on some unexpected forms when you're talking about contracts especially in California.
Very few disputes would ever justify the time and expense of going before a judge. So it gets to be a poker game, It's more a matter of who is willing to spend how much money of legal fees to get the other party to back down.
More than once I have had someone blatantly breaking a contract and my attorney has reminded me that they can have obligations to their partners or shareholders that require them to break the contract with me, if it is in their overall best interest.
Also I've had a judgement against someone and rather than pay or fight my judgement they bring a frivolous suite against me for some made up issue and I have to walk away even though I am completely in the right, with my "Enforceable" Judgement.
The best thing to do is try and be very careful who you play with and be ready for a poker game to pop-up at anytime.

It's hard when there's no ratings system for private sellers and buyers to help determine their integrity, but...

I tend to be curious about this like rw2... If I agree to sell something, then decide I don't want to, how can I be forced to honor the agreement as long as no one is defrauded or loses money? Integrity and a man's honor aside... is it really the law that I would have to complete the sale?

I'm starting to think they were testing the waters to try to get me to offer more. As it stands, I'm set to pick it up on Wednesday morning. The whole story will be forthcoming, but for now I'm just holding my breath that the rest goes smoothly, that it is a good plane, and that it's a good decision. I've done just about all I can do as far as vetting it, so now time will tell.

The big question that comes up in any such court process is "damages".

Yes one person lied to or misled another, and yes there was a huge inconvenience, and yes someone's feelings were hurt... but in reality what actual quantifiable financial harm was done?

If the OP contracted with a ferry pilot to bring the airplane home, then a reasonable case could be made that the seller's lack of integrity and non-performance directly caused the OP to spend X dollars on the ferry pilot, so a judge might award the OP the X dollars for the ferry pilot's contract.

This isn't California specific, and I was never a California lawyer (thank the good Lord!), but as a general proposition, enforcing a contract by forcing the other party to go through with it is pretty hard to do. That's called "specific performance", and historically it was only applicable to real estate transactions. That's not always true, and I've seen some specific performance contracts which were enforced regarding personal property items.

More often, damages are the only remedy, and typically they are measured by the amount of the loss incurred by the innocent party. Since we're talking about the losses of the buyer, the only usual way to measure that, is to have the innocent party obtain a similar item elsewhere, and the "guilty" party then has to pay the difference between the agreed price and the price the innocent party had to pay.

An example: XYZ Motors agrees to sell Clem a new Ford truck for $28,000. But when Clem goes to XYZ to pick up the new truck, they won't go through with it. Why? Well, perhaps the salesman made a mistake and the selling price should have been a lot higher, or maybe XYZ's owner's wife wanted it. Whatever reason, they won't sell it to Clem. They hand him his down payment and tell him to get lost.

So Clem goes to ABC Motors in a neighboring town, finds the same truck with the same equipment, and buys it for $35,000. His logical damages would be $7,000, the difference between what he had to pay and what XYZ had earlier promised to sell it for. But especially because the same identical truck was available at ABC and perhaps other dealers, it would be nearly impossible to get specific performance and force XYZ to sell that particular truck to Clem.

On the other hand, if a vehicle was truly unique, one of a kind, it might be possible to get specific performance. The first Corvette, the first Shelby Cobra, or maybe the only remaining supercharged 1938 Mercedes SS with all matching serial numbers. Things like that might persuade a knowledgeable judge to grant specific performance.

On the issue of verbal agreements, every state has statutes that fall into the category of "statute of frauds". That doesn't mean a real fraud. It means that there are restrictions on verbal agreements. For instance, there may be a minimum dollar amount, or a particular type of agreement, which requires a writing. If a statute of frauds requires a written agreement for that particular transaction, that means that a verbal agreement is not enforceable.

Certainly the cost of litigation is a major issue, too. In the last decade of my practice, I used to tell clients that if the most their case was worth was in the $20,000 range, it wouldn't be worth litigating, even in County Court. Some wanted to do it anyway, and often they were shocked at the cost, even if they won. The real losers are those who can't afford it at all. The case might be worth only $15,000, for instance, but both sides are likely to spend more than that on attorney fees and expert witness fees.

That's why Small Claims courts were created, to handle lesser cases. Here in Colorado, I understand that they've fairly recently raised the limit in Small Claims to $10,000. No attorneys generally, and much less adherence to the Rules of Evidence. But not slam dunks, either.

Now don't anyone blame the messenger. I didn't make the system, but I learned how to make it work for many of my clients, but not all. Often there were ways to persuade parties to do what they had promised to do, legitimate legal threats that were persuasive. But not always.

Cary

Heres the important question Cory....will you have a back seat for me this time

If the problem does come up again, Rachpilot's a lawyer......and a good shot........

Cary wrote:This isn't California specific, and I was never a California lawyer (thank the good Lord!), but as a general proposition, enforcing a contract by forcing the other party to go through with it is pretty hard to do. That's called "specific performance", and historically it was only applicable to real estate transactions. That's not always true, and I've seen some specific performance contracts which were enforced regarding personal property items.

Thanks Cary. Very interesting, and understandable, summary.

EZFlap wrote: The big question that comes up in any such court process is "damages".
Yes one person lied to or misled another, and yes there was a huge inconvenience, and yes someone's feelings were hurt... but in reality what actual quantifiable financial harm was done? ....

This is what I've been wondering. Was there any money spent that wouldn't have been spent if the agreement had not been made? A pre-buy inspection, if made before the offer was made & accepted, doesn't qualify. If you'd sue to purchase the airplane, it seems very likely that it would be sold to someone else before the case could be filed, and almost certainly before it got to court.

Sometimes you get screwed, and you just have to let things go, and try to be satisfied with calling someone a lying asshole as you walk away.