Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Martin: The Case Study

Introduction

The issue in this case is that a deal to Mr Martin occurred unfairly due to a unilateral error by the Wells Fargo agent that resulted in a misrepresentation of the property’s value. It leads to Wells Fargo going to court and hoping to have this erraneous sale nullified.

Relevant law

The Uniform Commercial Code Sale by Auction is the law needed to decide the issue mentioned above. The law states that the sale is complete when an auctioneer uses a customary mannerism to signal it such as the fall of the hammer. Suppose another bid happened as the hammer fell to verify a previous offer, then the issue could go either way (“§ 2-328. Sale by Auction.”, n.d.). It would be up to the auctioneer to reopen the bid or close it, with the accepted bid being the previous one that was getting verified.

Application of the Law

The fact of the story is that the Wells Fargo agent misread the bid price, and Harley Martin placed his bid based on this information. When the county clerk gave ample time for another bid, and none was forthcoming, he performed the mannerisms of closing the case. Applying the law to this fact means the sale was made before the agent objected and Harley Martin had bought the house on fair grounds. Wells Fargo lost the case because the deal was valid and the unavoidable error made was a risk on their part.

Conclusion

My thoughts on the case are that the verdict, despite not favoring Wells Fargo, was fair for Mr Martin. I agree with the decision of the court to award him the house because the procedure of the auction was lawful and Mr. Martin did not take advantage of a situation. The law does not allow for a judgement to get rescinded because of an honest mistake unless the other party knows about it and takes advantage.

References

Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Martin, 605 So. 2d 531 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992). § 2-328. Sale by Auction. LII / Legal Information Institute. Web.