The Case of Marisol's Bicycle: A Story of Miscommunication

What happened in the scenario involving Charlie, Jamal, and Marisol and what is the issue at hand?

In the scenario, Charlie tells Jamal that Marisol has agreed to allow him to sell her racing bicycle. Marisol, who is present during the conversation, does not object. Jamal, wanting to buy a bicycle like Marisol's, agrees with Charlie to purchase Marisol's bike. However, Marisol later on refuses to sell the bicycle, claiming that Charlie is not her agent.

The Misunderstanding of Agency in Contracts

Marisol's refusal to sell the bicycle raises an important question about agency and contract law. In legal terms, an agent is a person who is authorized to act on behalf of another person, known as the principal. In this case, the issue revolves around whether or not Charlie had the authority to enter into an agreement to sell Marisol's bicycle on her behalf.

According to the concept of agency given by estoppel, if Marisol's actions led Charlie and Jamal to believe that he had the authority to sell the bicycle on her behalf, then she may be bound by the agreement formed between the two parties. This concept is based on the idea that if someone acts in a way that leads others to believe that they have authorized another person to act on their behalf, they cannot later deny the existence of that agency relationship.

In this scenario, Marisol's presence during the conversation where Charlie and Jamal discussed the sale of the bicycle could be interpreted as giving them the impression that she had agreed to the sale. By not objecting at that time, Marisol's actions may have created an appearance of authority that could bind her to the agreement formed.

Therefore, under the theory of agency given by estoppel, Marisol may indeed be bound by the contract formed between Charlie and Jamal for the sale of her racing bicycle.
← Understanding collisions a closer look into car accidents Responsibility to vote what citizenship responsibility comes with it →