Ravi,an art collector,had been made a standing offer by a gallery to purchase one of his paintings for $150,000.At shows and luncheons of the art community he had previously rejected the entreaties,knowing the painting to be worth at least twice as much.On the latest occasion of a luncheon at which Ravi was deliver an art commentary to the guests,the gallery made its offer once more.To himself,Ravi considered the offer and concluded he could use the charitable tax relief that such a sale at a loss would generate.In the course of his speech,he acknowledged and accepted the offer.Two days later,Ravi's lawyer advised him that the purchasing gallery was NOT a charitable foundation,and no tax deduction for such a "donation" could be expected.Ravi then refused to sell the painting to the gallery.On the strength of the verbal agreement of purchase and sale made in the presence of witnesses,the gallery sued Ravi for breach of contract,and for a decree of specific performance to compel Ravi to sell it the painting.Ravi may successfully plead that his words were agreement in principle only.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Ravi's words were not an agreement in principle because he did not intend to be bound by them. He only agreed to sell the painting if he could get a charitable tax deduction, which he later found out he could not.

Ravi,an Art Collector,had Been Made a Standing Offer by a Gallery