The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P contacted D about a van D had advertised for sale. The advertisement described the van as a 1994 Ford E-350. The advertisement promised a 'clean' certificate of title but did not indicate a sale price. P inspected the van. P orally agreed to purchase the van for $15,000. The parties then agreed in writing that P would make an immediate $2,000 deposit and D would provide P 'title by 4/14/14 or the deposit will be refunded in full. The deposit agreement described the van as a Ford E-350 but did not specify the model year. D provided a certificate of title, but the certificate indicated that the owner of the van was a third party. On the reverse side of the certificate, the owner appeared to have assigned her interest as a 'seller,' although the place for the purchaser's name was blank. The certificate also described the van as a 1993 model rather than a 1994 model. Barker refused to accept the certificate of title and demanded a refund. D refused to refund the deposit. P filed a small claim against D for breach of contract, which was later transferred to the court's plenary docket. D filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court entered summary judgment for D. The trial court concluded that the year of the van was not a term material to the deposit agreement because that 'agreement makes no reference to the year of the vehicle'; that P had accepted the van when he inspected it and paid the deposit; and that the certificate of title D tendered satisfied his obligation under the deposit agreement. P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.