Madere v. Cole
1982 La. App. LEXIS 8624, 424 So. 2d 1125 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract of sale is perfected and legally binding as soon as the parties reach an agreement on the object and the price, even if the price has not yet been paid. A subsequent, unilateral attempt by one party to change the price does not invalidate the perfected contract.
Facts:
- Colleen Madere and John A. Lingo agreed to provide a stud service for Ellen M. Cole's female poodle.
- The agreement stipulated a fee of either $150 in advance or the 'pick of the litter.'
- Cole did not pay the $150 fee in advance.
- The poodle's litter consisted of two puppies, but one died, leaving only one survivor.
- When the puppy was several weeks old, Cole brought it to Madere and Lingo but expressed her desire to keep it.
- Madere and Lingo offered to sell the puppy to Cole for a discounted price of $250.00.
- Cole wrote a check for $250.00, gave it to Madere and Lingo, and left with the puppy.
- Later that day, Cole stopped payment on the $250.00 check and mailed a new check for $150.00, which Madere and Lingo did not cash.
Procedural Posture:
- Colleen Madere and John A. Lingo (plaintiffs) filed suit against Ellen M. Cole (defendant) in a trial court for the purchase price of a puppy.
- The trial court found that ambiguity existed in the sale and awarded the plaintiffs $150.00.
- The plaintiffs, Madere and Lingo, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the parties form an enforceable contract of sale for $250.00 when Ellen M. Cole provided a check for that amount and took possession of the puppy, despite her later stopping payment on the check?
Opinions:
Majority - Shortess, Judge.
Yes, the parties formed an enforceable contract of sale for $250.00. A contract of sale is perfected when three elements are met: the thing sold, the price, and consent. The court reasoned that there were two distinct agreements. Under the initial stud service agreement, Cole's failure to pay in advance meant the surviving puppy legally belonged to Madere and Lingo. The second agreement, a new contract of sale, was perfected when the parties agreed on the object (the puppy) and the price ($250.00), and Cole manifested her consent by writing a check and taking possession. Any ambiguity in the first agreement was irrelevant to this new, clear contract of sale, which obligates Cole to pay the agreed-upon price.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes the importance of treating related but distinct contracts as separate legal events. It clarifies that a contract of sale under the Louisiana Civil Code is perfected at the moment of agreement on the object and price, making it immediately binding. The ruling serves as a precedent against allowing 'buyer's remorse' or unilateral actions after the fact to invalidate a clear and consensual transaction, thus reinforcing the stability and predictability of completed sales.
