Biz law assigment

Section A

1 The guardian can get the land back, but Arthur must pay Katrina the $5,000.

2 Ian made a counteroffer, which terminated Kristin’s offer.

3 Win on the basis of a design defect.

4 The driver must bear responsibility on the risk past when seller sell good to him and the drive did not mitigate loss.

Section B

1

 Alvin and Bert

The price notice on the car did not constitute a legal offer, it was merely an invitation to treat. As such it is not an offer to sell but merely an invitation to others to make offers. The point of this is that the person extending the invitation is not bound to accept any offers made to them as may be seen in Fisher v Bell (1961) in which it was held that having switch-blade knives in the window of a shop was not the same as offering them for sale. Consequently Bert is not in a position to sue Alvin.

Alvin and Cat

An offeror may withdraw their offer at any time before it has been accepted and once revoked it is no longer open to the offeree to accept the original offer. Also a promise to keep an offer open is only binding where there is a separate contract to that effect. This is known as an option contract, and the offeree must provide additional consideration for the promise to keep the offer open. If not,

then the offeror can simply withdraw the offer under the normal rules relating to revocation of offers.

As Cat did not provide any consideration to form an option contract, Alvin is not bound to wait for her to return and can sell the car to anyone else if he so chooses.

Alvin and Del

This is a perfectly ordinary contract. The fact that Alvin had previously contracted not to sell it, does not affect Del and he is entitled to take good title to the car.

2

Ali and Ben

As stated above, the sign in the window was merely an invitation to treat and the postal rule only applies to offers and does not apply to invitations to treat. Consequently as Ben was in fact making an offer to Ali when he sent his letter, it was for Ali to accept or reject the offer on receipt of the letter, providing he had not already bound himself to any alternative contractual agreement.

and Chet

The first real offer is made by Chet when he says that he would give Ali $400 for the vase. Ali responded by making a counteroffer to sell the vase for $450 to which Chet restated his original offer, this time in the form of a counter-offer to Ali’s new offer. As a result Chet, by insisting on his offer of $400, cannot at a later time attempt to accept Ali’s offer of $450.

At first look it might appear that Chet may have taken advantage of the postal rule; however, when it is realised that it was not open to him to make any acceptance as he had rejected Ali’s offer, it is apparent that the postal rule is of no avail to Chet, so he has no contract with Ali. Once again Ali might have accepted the offer on receipt of the letter, providing he had not already bound

himself to any alternative contractual agreement.

Ali and Di

In line with the preceding analysis Di made an offer to Ali, which he readily accepted. The parties entered into a binding contract by their mutual exchange of promises: Di to bring the £400 on the following Monday and Ali to give her the vase. As a result although Ali might prefer to accept Ben’s offer, he is nonetheless contractually bound to deliver the vase to Di if and when she brings the agreed sum of $400 to him on Monday. Of course if Di does not provide the money by the agreed time Ali would be at liberty to sell the vase to either Ben or Chet, as he chose.