lOMoARcPSD|50734573 5 câu true/false
1. Phân loại luật: criminal and civil law -> đưa ra case >
hỏi cách để phân loại=> hỏi đó là criminal law hay civil law
2. Phân loại hợp đồng: hđ song vụ, đơn vụ => hợp đồng
không nhất thiết phải có sự công bằng, cân bằng
3. Sự phân biệt giữa contract law và tort law: tort liên
quan đến việc các bên k có hợp đồng, và 1 bên làm sai
cgi thì bên đó phải chịu trách nhiệm hành động của mình
Tort law: liên quan đến neligence (liên quan đến
hambeger) => chứng minh 3 thành tố contract law:
4. Các phương thức giải quyết tranh chấp: private ->
cóphải private k, abitrage -> không được??
5. Civil law: đưa ra case -> xác định đó là criminal
lawhay civil-> hậu quả
- Xác định các bên của contract: bên nào offerer bên nào là offeree
Take in consideration the following event and scenario and
ascertain if a valid contract is formed. Use IRAC method to explain.
Patrick, the owner of P & P Machine Shop needed money for
his new bakery business. Patrick offered to sell his drilling
machine to Helena on the 1st April, stating that his offer shall
remain open th April. until 10 am on 4 Helena decided
to accept on the next day but she was too lOMoARcPSD|50734573
busy to inform Patrick. Later, on the 3rd April, Helena was
informed by a third party that Patrick had sold to someone
else. Helena immediately contacted Patrick to accept his offer
but Patrick replied that it was too late and he had already sold
his drilling machine to his friend, Michael. Helena argued
that Patrick breached the contract. Advise Helena.
Offer: Revocation. The offeror has a right to revoke an offer
before it is accepted.
2. Take in consideration the following event and scenario
and ascertain if Patrick breached the contract between
Patrick and Justin. Use IRAC method to explain.
Patrick offered to sell his packaging machine to Justin for
£11,000 but Justin declined the offer. Patrick needed the
funds urgently for his new bakery business, he offered a 10%
discount if Justin agreed to pay him within two weeks. Justin
offered 20% discount and would pay within one month but
Patrick refused to accept. Later on, Justin agreed to buy the
item at 10% discount and pay Patrick within two weeks but
Patrick refused to sell the packaging machine to him and
Justin sued for breach of contract. Advise Justin. Patrick Justin Agreement (Yes/No) Offer 1: sell his Declined (k đồng ý) No packaging machine to Justin for £11,000 lOMoARcPSD|50734573 Offer 2: a 10% Kept silent No discount if Justin agreed to pay him within two weeks refused 20% discount and No would pay within one month refused buy the item at 10% No discount and pay Patrick within two weeks Issues: 2 issues
Whether there is an agreement between Patrick and Justin on
selling the packaging machine?
Whether Patrick breached the contract between Patrick and Justin?
Rules: (có các case khác dẫn chứng, lấy trong sách)
- Agreement is made by a valid offer and a valid acceptance.
- Counter-offer is a new offer made by the offeree. When
the offeree makes a counter-offer, the original offer made
by the offeror is invalid. The counter-offer replaces the original offer. Analysis:
There is no agreement between Patrick and Jus6n. lOMoARcPSD|50734573
There is no contract between Patrick and Jus6n.
Therefore, Patrick did not breach the contact between Patrick and Jus6n. Conclusion
Mandy was late for her work so she asked Tommy, her
boyfriend, to buy a burger from Violet, the owner of Maya
Cafe for her consump6on. AAer taking a few bites, Mandy
discovered the remains of a decomposed lizard inside the
burger. Mandy became seriously il and sued Violet, who
argued that there was no contract between her and
Mandy, she owed Mandy no duty of care and so was not liable to her. Advise Mandy. Issues:
1. Whether Violet owed a duty of care to Mandy?
2. Whether Violet breached a duty of care?
3. Whether there was a causation between Violet’s breach of duty of care and damages? Rules:
1. Duty of care: proximity of relationship + reasonable
foreseeability of loss + fairness, trust, reasonable lOMoARcPSD|50734573
2. Breach of duty of care: standard of reasonable care3.
Causation: Breach is the direct cause to actual damages Analysis:
Violet and Mandy had a close relationship because Mandy
is a consumer of her product. It was reasonable foreseeable
if Many ate a hamburger with a decomposed lizard inside, she would be harmed.
Because Violet did not comply with the standard of care
owed by a manufacturer of the product, she breached her duty.
Violet’s breach directly caused to Mandy’s il ness. Conclusion:
1. Violet owed a duty of care to Many.
2. Violet breached her duty of care.
3. There was a causation between Violet’s breach and Mandy’s illness.
Violet was responsible for Mandy’s illness IRAC rule