The People's Court Puppy Case. I'm Still With Grotius!

October 25th, 2013.

To: Judge Marilyn Milian, The People’s Court (http://peoplescourt.warnerbros.com/),

I enjoy your television show but I disagree with your recent ruling over the undelivered pick-of-the-litter puppy – which aired today on KCAL 9, Los Angeles.

Given the partial facts I heard from the case which included an offer of $450 for the pick-of-the-litter puppy, regarding the denial/rejection of the offer to buy a puppy after the breeder/offeree had apparently previously accepted the same offer and the subsequent law suit for the value of the puppy and lost profits in the form of future stud fees by the frustrated buyer/offeror which was the subject of your ruling, I disagree with your verdict for the plaintiff/offeror.  If anything, I would say the buyer/offeror is merely entitled to the return of her deposit.  Nevertheless it was sort of bizarre behavior by the breeder to not allow the plaintiff an opportunity to match the second offer.  But it was not bizarre at all for the breeder to accept the later/second offer from a third party which doubled the amount offered by the plaintiff for the same dog.   Either way, the breeder’s/offeree’s behavior was not contrary to contract law/theory, in my opinion.  As I have stated elsewhere still applies to this pick-of-the-litter puppy case: "I’m with Grotius."  (See:  I’m with Grotius – and maybe with Dodds too, but not with Dickerson; located at http://engineeringandcommerce.blogspot.com/2013/02/im-with-grotius-and-maybe-with-dodds.html.)  

But in the end, I really have no problem with your awarding the plaintiff the value of the dog if that is what she had invested in the rescinded deal – if such a rescission actually took place, of which I am skeptical.  I am skeptical because I don't believe a deal was ever officially agreed upon nor was any deal actually set to transpire - as there was no writing in the matter, regardless of any feigned acceptance or not.  (Again, I didn’t hear all the facts as I tuned in late.) (See: ‘The peril of perjury and error is latent in the spoken promise’ – Cordozo; at http://engineeringandcommerce.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-peril-of-perjury-and-error-is.html.)

However, I wanted to blog that I disagree with the typical run-of-mill offer-and-acceptance baloney.  The offer has not been accepted until the full compensation/consideration has been exchanged, in my humble opinion (see the referenced link '...Grotius' above for more information).  Of course, many a law school may have many a problem with my outlook on many a legal matter – but nary an offeree would!   :)

Adam Trotter, P.E.