Please Help me solve this case in 100 to 500 words Business Law

Case No. 44

ACCEPTANCE IN A SPECIFIED MANNER/ LEMON LAW/PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Cintron v. Tony Royal Quality Used Cars. Inc.

New York City Civil Court

132 Misc.2d 75,503 N.Y.S.2d 230 (1986)

FACTS: Plaintiff Hector Cintron (Cintron) purchased a used 1978 Chevrolet Malibu for a price of $3039 from defendant Tony Royal Quality Used Cars, Inc. (Royal). The purchase order was a printed form provided by Royal. Above the line for the buyer's signature appeared the words, "This contract to be effective only when approved by the General Manager." While the purchase order contained a description of the 1978 Malibu, the purchase price, and the signature of Cintron, it did not contain the signature of the General Manager on the line reserved for the signature.

Cintron took delivery of the vehicle but was not provided with a proper New York State Certificate of Title or a written warranty as required by the "lemon law". Problems with the vehicle developed and Cintron returned it to Royal for repairs within the warranty period provided by the lemon law. Royal failed to make the needed repairs, in violation of the lemon law, and Cintron is now suing for the return of his purchase price and for punitive damages.

FIRST ISSUE: Did an enforceable contract exist between Cintron and Royal for the purchase of the automobile?

DECISION: No, Cintron was entitled to a full refund of the purchase price.

REASONING: In order for a contract to exist, there must be a valid offer and an acceptance. In this case Cintron created a valid offer by signing the preprinted order form drafted by Royal. However, Royal never accepted in the manner required by the contract, that is, the signature of the General Manager.

An offer can be revoked at any time prior to acceptance. The court found that when Royal refused to repair the vehicle, Cintron withdrew his offer. Hence, even though Cintron had taken delivery of the vehicle, no contract existed.

SECOND ISSUE: Is Cintron entitled to recover punitive damages from Royal even though a valid contract did not exist?

DECISION: Yes.

REASONING: When awarding punitive damages the court considers the "moral culpability of the defendant." Because Royal blatantly violated various sections of New York law involving certificates of title and the lemon law, and refused to repair the vehicle as required by law, the court awarded Cintron punitive damages even though a valid contract did not exist. The court noted that Royal's actions were a "total disregard of the public policy of this state... as to amount to gross, wanton and willful fraud