Final answer:
Because Garth and Helen have different understandings of which ATV is being sold and there was no meeting of the minds, a court would likely find that no enforceable contract exists due to a mutual mistake.
Step-by-step explanation:
The scenario described involves a common issue in contract law known as a mutual mistake, where parties to a contract have different understandings of a material fact. Garth owns two ATVs worth $1,000 and $500 respectively, and Helen agrees to buy one for $750. Since Garth believes he is selling the $500 ATV and Helen believes she is purchasing the $1,000 one, there is no meeting of the minds, which is essential for a valid contract.
The outcome, in this case, would typically be that there is no contract because of the mutual mistake. Both parties were acting in good faith, but without an agreement on the essential terms of the contract, namely which ATV was being sold, a court would likely find that no enforceable agreement was reached.
In this situation, neither Garth nor Helen would be entitled to their desired outcome because their beliefs are based on a misunderstanding.
Garth believes he is selling the $500 ATV for $750, while Helen believes she is buying the $1000 ATV for $750. However, in a contract, there must be a mutual agreement and meeting of the minds on the terms of the transaction.
Since both parties have different beliefs about which ATV is being bought and sold, there is no mutual agreement, and therefore, there is no contract. The correct answer is 4) There is no contract.