-
Thông tin
-
Hỏi đáp
Tình huống kinh doanh | Học viện Hành chính Quốc gia
Take in consideration the following event and scenario and ascertain if a valid contract is formed. Use theIRAC method to explain, Take in consideration the following event and scenario and ascertain if Patrick breached the contractbetween Patrick and Justin. Use the IRAC method to explain Tài liệu giúp bạn tham khảo, ôn tập và đạt kết quả cao. Mời đọc đón xem!
Thống kê lao động (HRF2006) 121 tài liệu
Học viện Hành chính Quốc gia 766 tài liệu
Tình huống kinh doanh | Học viện Hành chính Quốc gia
Take in consideration the following event and scenario and ascertain if a valid contract is formed. Use theIRAC method to explain, Take in consideration the following event and scenario and ascertain if Patrick breached the contractbetween Patrick and Justin. Use the IRAC method to explain Tài liệu giúp bạn tham khảo, ôn tập và đạt kết quả cao. Mời đọc đón xem!
Môn: Thống kê lao động (HRF2006) 121 tài liệu
Trường: Học viện Hành chính Quốc gia 766 tài liệu
Thông tin:
Tác giả:
Preview text:
lOMoARcPSD|50734573 ÔN TẬP
CASE 1: Take in consideration the following event and scenario and ascertain if a valid contract is formed. Use the
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 1stApril, stating that his offer shall remain open until 10 am on 4th April. Helena decided to accept
on the next day but she was too 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.
Patrick, chủ cửa hàng P&P Machine Shop cần tiền cho công việc kinh doanh bánh mì mới của mình. Patrick đề nghị bán
máy khoan của mình cho Helena vào ngày 1 tháng 4, nói rằng lời đề nghị của anh ấy sẽ kéo dài đến 10 giờ sáng ngày 4
tháng 4. Helena quyết định nhận lời vào ngày hôm sau nhưng cô quá bận nên không thể thông báo cho Patrick. Sau đó, vào
ngày 3 tháng 4, Helena được bên thứ ba thông báo rằng Patrick đã bán cho người khác. Helena ngay lập tức liên hệ với
Patrick để chấp nhận lời đề nghị của anh nhưng Patrick trả lời rằng đã quá muộn và anh đã bán chiếc máy khoan của mình
cho bạn mình, Michael. Helena cho rằng Patrick đã vi phạm hợp đồng. Hãy khuyên Helena.
Ưu đãi: Thu hồi. Người đề nghị có quyền hủy bỏ lời đề nghị trước khi nó được chấp nhận. Issue:
The issue is whether a valid contract was formed between Patrick and Helena, and whether Patrick's sale of the drilling
machine to Michael constitutes a breach of that contract. -
liệu một hợp đồng hợp lệ có được hình thành giữa Patrick và Helena hay không -
liệu việc Patrick bán máy khoan cho Michael có cấu thành hành vi vi phạm hợp đồng đó hay không. Rule:
A contract is formed when there is an offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual intent to be bound. Additionally,
an offer can be revoked any time before it is accepted unless it is supported by consideration or otherwise irrevocable
by law. The rules relevant to this scenario include: 1.
**Offer**: An offer must be communicated to the offeree. 2.
**Acceptance**: Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. 3.
**Revocation**: An offeror can revoke the offer any time before acceptance unless it is an irrevocable offer. 4.
**Option Contract**: An offer can be irrevocable if supported by consideration.dựa vào Dickinson v. Dodds Application: 1.
**Offer**: On April 1st, Patrick made a clear offer to sell his drilling machine to Helena, stating the offer
wouldremain open until 10 am on April 4th. This sets up a timeframe within which Helena could accept the offer. lOMoARcPSD|50734573 2.
**Revocation and Third-Party Notification**: On April 3rd, Helena learned from a third party that Patrick had sold
themachine to someone else. According to contract law principles, an offeror can revoke an offer any time before it is
accepted. The revocation must be communicated to the offeree directly or indirectly (if the offeree learns from a reliable
source). In this case, the revocation was indirectly communicated to Helena via a third party. 3.
**Acceptance**: Helena attempted to accept the offer on April 3rd, after learning of the sale to Michael.
Acceptancemust be communicated to the offeror while the offer is still valid. Since Helena learned that Patrick sold the
machine before she communicated her acceptance, the offer was effectively revoked before her acceptance. 4.
**Option Contract**: Helena could argue that Patrick's statement that the offer would remain open until 10 am on
April4th constituted an option contract. However, for an option contract to be binding, there must be a consideration –
something of value exchanged to keep the offer open. There is no indication that Helena provided any consideration to keep
the offer open, making Patrick's offer revocable. Conclusion:
Patrick's offer to sell the drilling machine to Helena was valid initially but was effectively revoked when Helena learned of
the sale to Michael. Since Helena did not communicate acceptance before learning of the revocation, no valid contract was
formed. Therefore, Patrick did not breach a contract because no binding contract existed when he sold the machine to
Michael. Helena does not have grounds to claim that Patrick breached the contract.
Lời đề nghị bán máy khoan cho Helena của Patrick ban đầu có hiệu lực nhưng đã bị thu hồi hiệu quả khi Helena biết được
việc bán cho Michael. Vì Helena không thông báo sự chấp nhận trước khi biết về việc thu hồi nên không có hợp đồng hợp
lệ nào được hình thành. Vì vậy, Patrick không vi phạm hợp đồng vì không có hợp đồng ràng buộc nào tồn tại khi anh bán
máy cho Michael. Helena không có căn cứ cho rằng Patrick đã vi phạm hợp đồng. CASE 2:
Take in consideration the following event and scenario and ascertain if Patrick breached the contract
between Patrick and Justin. Use the 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
a 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 đề nghị bán chiếc máy đóng gói của mình cho Justin với giá 11.000 bảng Anh nhưng Justin đã từ chối lời đề nghị
đó. Patrick cần tiền gấp cho công việc kinh doanh bánh mì mới của mình. Anh ấy đề nghị giảm giá 10% nếu Justin đồng ý
trả tiền cho anh ấy trong vòng hai tuần. Justin đề nghị giảm giá 20% và sẽ thanh toán trong vòng một tháng nhưng
Patrick từ chối chấp nhận. Sau đó, Justin đồng ý mua món hàng đó với giá chiết khấu 10% và thanh toán cho Patrick trong
vòng hai tuần nhưng Patrick từ chối bán máy đóng gói cho anh ta và Justin đã khởi kiện vì vi phạm hợp đồng. Hãy khuyên Justin. Issue: lOMoARcPSD|50734573
Was there any contract formed between Patrick and Justin?
Did Patrick breach the contract by refusing to sell the machine to Justin? Rules: Agreement: Offeror: Patrick Offeree: Justin
For a contract to be valid, there must be a valid offer, acceptance of that offer, intention to create legal relations, and
consideration exchanged between the parties.
A counter-offer made by the offeree terminates the original offer. Consideration:
Consideration is something of value exchanged between parties to a contract, which can be a promise, act, or forbearance.
In the 1840 case of "Hyde v. Wrench", Wrench proposed to sell a piece of land to Hyde for £1000. Hyde then offered to buy
it for £950, but Wrench refused. Hyde then accepted the purchase for an initial price of £1000. However, Wrench refused to
accept Hyde's acceptance. The court decided that when Hyde offered to buy for £950, it was a counteroffer and a rejection
of the original offer. When Hyde later accepted the initial price, there was no mutual agreement between the two parties and
therefore no contract was formed. In this case, there is no breach of contract by either party.
Application and Analysis: Initial offer:
Patrick offered to sell his packaging machine to Justin for £11,000.
Justin declined the offer, terminating it. New offer and counter-offer:
Patrick offered a 10% discount if Justin agreed to pay him within two weeks.
Justin responded with a counter-offer, proposing a 20% discount and a payment term of one month.
Justin's counter-offer acted as a rejection of Patrick's offer and proposed new terms.
Patrick declined Justin's counter-offer.
Acceptance of original new offer:
Justin later agreed to buy the machine at the 10% discount and to pay within two weeks, which was an acceptance of Patrick's last offer. Conclusion:
Based on the analysis, since there was no mutual agreement between Patrick and Justin on the terms of the sale, no contract
was formed. Patrick did not breach any contract by refusing to sell the machine to Justin because there was no valid contract
in existence between them. Therefore, Justin's claim for breach of contract would likely not succeed. Patrick Justin Agreement(Yes/No) lOMoARcPSD|50734573
sell his packaging machine to Justin for £1D1e,0c0li0ned No
a 10% discount if Justin agreed to pay hi m withinKept silent No two weeks refused
20% discount and would pay within one thNo mon refused
buy the item at 10% discount and pay Patri ck within two weeks 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: -
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 bythe
offeror is invalid. The counter-offer replaces the original offer. Analysis:
There is no agreement between Patrick and Justin.
There is no contract between Patrick and Justin.
Therefore, Patrick did not breach the contact between Patrick and Justin. Conclusion:
There is no agreement between Patrick and Justin.
Patrick did not breach the contract between Patrick and Justin. CLASS ACTIVITIES
Scenario 1: 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 consumption. After taking a few bites, Mandy discovered the remains of a decomposed lizard inside
the burger (một con thằn lằn đã phân hủy bên trong chiếc bánh mì kẹp thịt). Mandy became seriously ill 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 (chịu trách nhiệm). Advise Mandy. Issues:
1. Whether Violet owed a duty of care to Mandy?
2. Whether Violet breached a duty of care? lOMoARcPSD|50734573
3. Whether there was a causation (nhân quả) 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
2. Breach of duty of care: standard of reasonable care
3. Causation: Breach is the direct cause of actual damages
4. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), The House of Lords determined that the manufacturer of ginger beer had aresponsibility
to take care of Mrs. Donoghue, even though there was no direct contract between them. (Donoghue v Stevenson (1932),
House of Lords xác định rằng nhà sản xuất bia gừng có trách nhiệm chăm sóc bà Donoghue, mặc dù giữa họ không có hợp đồng trực tiếp.)
Yes, Donoghue v Stevenson is a landmark case in the development of the law of negligence in the United Kingdom. In this
case, Mrs. Donoghue consumed a bottle of ginger beer that contained a decomposed snail. As a result, she suffered from
shock and gastroenteritis. Since there was no contractual relationship between Mrs. Donoghue and the ginger beer
manufacturer, she could not sue under contract law. However, the House of Lords established the principle of duty of care
owed by manufacturers to consumers, even in the absence of a contractual relationship. Lord Atkin famously formulated
the neighbor principle, stating that "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably
foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor." This case laid the foundation for the modern law of negligence and has
had a significant impact on product liability and consumer protection laws worldwide. Application
Violet and Mandy had a close relationship because Mandy is a consumer of her product. It was reasonably foreseeable that
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 Mandy's illness.
Applying the principles from Donoghue v Stevenson, Violet is obligated to exercise care towards Mandy. 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.
4. Violet was responsible for Mandy’s illness
Scenario 2 (Invitation to Treat): Mandy went into a furniture shop and saw a price label on an antique clock for £325.
She took the clock to the checkout, but the cashier told her that the label was misprinted and should read £625. Mandy
maintained that she only must pay £325. How would you describe the price on the price label in terms of contract law? Advise Mandy.
Tình huống 2 (Mời mời đãi tiệc): Mandy đi vào một cửa hàng nội thất và nhìn thấy nhãn ghi giá trên một chiếc đồng
hồ cổ có giá £325. Cô mang đồng hồ đến quầy tính tiền nhưng nhân viên thu ngân nói với cô rằng nhãn mác bị in sai lOMoARcPSD|50734573
và ghi là £625. Mandy khẳng định cô chỉ phải trả 325 bảng Anh. Bạn sẽ mô tả giá trên nhãn giá theo luật hợp đồng
như thế nào? Hãy khuyên Mandy. Issues:
1. Whether the price on the label constitutes an offer or invitation to treat?
2. Whether there is an agreement between Mandy and the shop? Rules:
1. Invitation to treat = invitation to make an offer, not an offer and not legally binding. Pricing label on goods in a selfservice
shop is seen as an invitation to treat, rather than an offer
2. Agreement must combine a valid offer and a valid acceptance
1. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401
Facts: This case involved the sale of drugs in a self-service pharmacy. Customers would select items from the shelves and
take them to the cashier for payment. Ruling: The court held that the display of goods on the shelves was an invitation to
treat, not an offer. The customer makes an offer to buy the goods when they present them at the cash desk, and the cashier
can then accept or reject the offer. Analysis:
The company did not propose to sell the clock for £325. If the price displayed on the label is not
accurate, the cashier will refuse the customer's proposal. Once a store agrees to accept payment, a
contractual agreement is established, and the store is not allowed to demand that you make up the
difference between the advertised price and the true price.
However, Mandy has not yet paid for the clock and the price on the label is an invitation for Mandy to make an offer.
Mandy wants to buy it at £325 (offeror), but the shop rejects and wants to sell it at £625 (offeree => counter offer). Conclusion:
1. It is an invitation to treat
2. As there is no agreement, the shop is not liable to sell at £325 Advice to Mandy:
Mandy should understand that the price label is not an offer but an invitation to treat.
The shop has the right to reject her offer of £325 and make a counter-offer of £625.
If Mandy is unwilling to pay the revised price of £625, she is within her rights to reject the counter-offer and not proceed with the purchase.
In summary, based on contract law principles, Mandy cannot insist on paying the misprinted price of £325 as the price label
is considered an invitation to treat, and there has been no agreement between her and the shop at that price.
Scenario 3 (Consideration): Mandy and Tommy were going to get married. Before the marriage, Mandy and Tommy
entered into an agreement forming a partnership and/or joint venture. Mandy and Tommy agreed that Mandy would
forego her full-time employment in order to care for their children and to provide other household services. Later, they lOMoARcPSD|50734573
purchased a house and Tommy continued working. When the relationship between them deteriorated, Mandy sued for
a share of the assets and retirement contribution earned by Tommy. Advise Mandy.
Marvin v. Marvin (1976): In this case, a woman brought a lawsuit demanding a portion of the estate and financial support
from her gay friend after they lived together without a prenup. The California court decided that, although they were not
legally married, the relationship created a type of contract in which the woman had the right to claim financial benefits from her partner.
Tình huống 3 (Cân nhắc): Mandy và Tommy sắp kết hôn. Trước khi kết hôn, Mandy và Tommy đã ký một thỏa thuận thành
lập quan hệ đối tác và/hoặc liên doanh. Mandy và Tommy đồng ý rằng Mandy sẽ từ bỏ công việc toàn thời gian của mình
để chăm sóc con cái và cung cấp các dịch vụ gia đình khác. Sau đó, họ mua một căn nhà và Tommy tiếp tục làm việc. Khi
mối quan hệ giữa họ xấu đi, Mandy đã kiện đòi chia tài sản và tiền hưu trí mà Tommy kiếm được. Hãy khuyên Mandy. Issues:
Whether there is a consideration of spitting assets and retirement contributions if they got divorced? Rules:
Consideration is a fundamental element of contract law. It refers to something of value exchanged between parties to a
contract, which can include promises, acts, forbearance, or the relinquishment of a legal right. For a contract to be
enforceable, there must be valid consideration exchanged between the parties. Analysis:
In this scenario, Mandy and Tommy entered into an agreement forming a partnership or joint venture before their marriage.
As part of this agreement, Mandy agreed to forego her full-time employment to care for their children and provide household
services while Tommy continued working. This arrangement can be seen as consideration exchanged between Mandy and Tommy:
Mandy's Foregoing Employment: Mandy's agreement to forego her full-time employment to care for their children and
provide household services can be considered valuable consideration. By doing so, she provided a service to the partnership
or joint venture, thereby contributing to the household and family welfare.
Tommy's Continued Employment: Tommy's agreement to continue working while Mandy took on the responsibilities of
caring for the children and managing the household can also be seen as consideration. His continued employment provided
financial support to the family and contributed to the partnership or joint venture.
Given that both parties provided valuable consideration in the form of services (Mandy) and continued employment
(Tommy), there is consideration for the agreement they entered into. Conclusion:
Based on the analysis, Mandy would have a valid claim for a share of the assets and retirement contributions earned by
Tommy if they were to get divorced. The agreement forming the partnership or joint venture, in which Mandy provided
valuable consideration by foregoing full-time employment, would likely be considered valid and enforceable. As such,
Mandy may be entitled to a fair distribution of assets and retirement contributions accumulated during the course of their lOMoARcPSD|50734573
relationship. It's advisable for Mandy to consult with a legal professional specializing in family law to explore her options
further and proceed with appropriate legal action if necessary.
Scenario 4: You had to go food shopping as the fridge and pantry were empty and your baby sister was not available so
you took your baby daughter, Mary, in a stroller to do the weekly shopping at the local Central Supermarket. After you
completed the shopping, and while you are waiting in the queue at the checkout to pay for the groceries, your daughter
Mary, reaches out of the stroller and takes a chocolate bar from the shelf. At this point, the checkout girl has nearly
finished totaling the cost of the groceries. She noticed what Mary had done and, as you did not come forward with the
payment of the chocolate your daughter Mary has taken from the shelf, the checkout girl tells you that you must pay for
the chocolate (by now mostly eaten by Mary). What will you do in this instance?
Tình huống 4: Bạn phải đi mua thực phẩm vì tủ lạnh và tủ đựng thức ăn trống rỗng và em gái của bạn không có sẵn
nên bạn đã đưa con gái nhỏ của mình, Mary, lên xe đẩy để đi mua sắm hàng tuần tại Siêu thị Trung tâm địa phương.
Sau khi bạn mua sắm xong và trong khi bạn đang xếp hàng ở quầy thanh toán để thanh toán tiền mua hàng tạp hóa, con gái
Mary của bạn, bước ra khỏi xe đẩy và lấy một thanh sôcôla trên kệ. Lúc này, cô gái tính tiền đã tính gần hết số tiền mua
hàng tạp hóa. Cô ấy nhận thấy những gì Mary đã làm và vì bạn không đến thanh toán số sô cô la mà Mary, con gái bạn đã
lấy từ kệ, cô gái tính tiền nói với bạn rằng bạn phải trả tiền cho số sô cô la (hiện tại hầu hết là do Mary ăn). Bạn sẽ làm gì trong trường hợp này? Issues:
1. Whether there is a contract of purchasing a bar of chocolate between Mary and the supermarket owner?
2. Whether the parent is liable for the payment of the chocolate that Mary ate? Rules:
Parental liability for minors’ contracts states that they are not liable for contracts entered into by their minor children, except
for contracts for necessities.
Case: Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903)
Summary: In this case, Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, borrowed money from Mohori Bibee, an elder.
Dharmodas Ghose signed a loan agreement in English which he did not understand. lOMoARcPSD|50734573
Afterwards, Mohori Bibee brought a lawsuit to court to request the return of the loan amount.
The court decided that the contract was invalid because Dharmodas Ghose was a minor and therefore did not have the legal
capacity to enter into a loan contract. Analysis:
A contract is created and accepted by Mary when she took the chocolate bar from the shelf and ate it without paying. The
parent had not carefully supervised Mary and chocolate is considered food - necessaries. Conclusion:
1. There isn’t a contract made by Mary
2. The parent is liable for Mary’s contract and the payment of the chocolate that Mary ate
Scenario 5 (Valid contract): Lawrence advertises in the local newspaper that he has lost his expensive wallet and offers
a reward of cash. John, who has not read the advertisement, finds the wallet and returns it to Lawrence. John later finds
out that there is a reward for the return of the wallet and he asks Lawrence for the cash reward. Is Lawrence legally
obliged to pay John the reward? Explain whether your answer would be different if John knew of the reward before he
found Lawrence's wallet?
Lawrence quảng cáo trên tờ báo địa phương rằng anh ta đã đánh mất chiếc ví đắt tiền của mình và treo thưởng bằng
tiền mặt. John, người chưa đọc quảng cáo, đã tìm thấy chiếc ví và trả lại cho Lawrence. John sau đó phát hiện ra rằng
có một phần thưởng cho việc trả lại chiếc ví và anh ấy yêu cầu Lawrence phần thưởng bằng tiền mặt. Về mặt pháp lý,
Lawrence có nghĩa vụ phải trả tiền thưởng cho John không? Hãy giải thích liệu câu trả lời của bạn có khác không nếu
John biết về phần thưởng trước khi anh ấy tìm thấy ví của Lawrence? Issues:
Whether Lawrence is legally obligated to pay John the reward if John was unaware of the reward when he found and
returned the wallet.
Whether the answer would differ if John knew of the reward before finding and returning the wallet. Rules:
Offer and Acceptance: For a contract to be formed, there must be a valid offer and acceptance. lOMoARcPSD|50734573
Unilateral Contracts: A unilateral contract is one where one party makes a promise in exchange for the performance of
an act by another party.
Knowledge of Offer: For acceptance of a unilateral contract, the offeree must have knowledge of the offer and act in reliance on it. Analysis:
John Unaware of the Reward:
No Knowledge of Offer: When John found and returned the wallet without knowing about the reward, he did not act in
reliance on Lawrence's offer. A unilateral contract requires that the offeree performs the act with knowledge of the offer
and intention to accept it.
No Acceptance: Since John was unaware of the reward, there was no acceptance of the offer because he could not have
intended to accept something he did not know existed.
John Aware of the Reward:
Knowledge of Offer: If John knew about the reward before finding the wallet, his actions of finding and returning the
wallet could be seen as acceptance of Lawrence's offer.
Formation of Contract: By performing the requested act with knowledge of the offer, John would be accepting the terms
of the unilateral contract. Thus, a contract would be formed, and Lawrence would be legally obliged to pay the reward. Conclusion:
John Unaware of the Reward:
Lawrence is not legally obligated to pay John the reward. John did not know about the offer, and thus there was no
acceptance of the unilateral contract.
John Aware of the Reward:
If John knew of the reward before finding and returning the wallet, Lawrence would be legally obligated to pay the
reward. In this case, John's actions constituted acceptance of the unilateral contract. Williams v. Carwardine (1833) Facts:
In this case, the defendant, Carwardine, had posted a reward for information leading to the arrest of a murderer.
Williams, the plaintiff, provided the information that led to the arrest, but she did so believing she was dying and wanted
to ease her conscience, not because of the reward. After learning of the reward, she sought to claim it. Issues:
Whether the plaintiff's motive for providing the information impacts her right to claim the reward.
Whether the plaintiff needs to be aware of the reward at the time of providing the information. Ruling: lOMoARcPSD|50734573
The court held that Williams was entitled to the reward despite her motives. The essential factor was that she performed
the act specified in the offer. It was irrelevant why she performed the act, as long as she knew about the reward and
provided the information.
Scenario 6: Offeror: I will sell you my car for $10,000.
Reply by Offeree: 'I will give you $9,000'.
Answer by Offeror: 'No deal'.
Counter Response: 'Ok, I will give you $9,500'
Issues: Whether a valid contract is formed? Rules:
A valid contract includes: Agreement (valid offer and acceptance), consideration (exchange of value), contractual capacity and legal object. Analysis:
Offeror wants to sell at $10,000. Offeree rejects and wants to buy at $9,000 => counter offer. Offeror rejects. Offeree wants
to buy at $9,500. There is no response from Offeror.
Conclusion: There is no agreement, no acceptance between all the parties => No valid
contract Case: Hyde v. Wrench (1840) Facts:
In Hyde v. Wrench, the defendant offered to sell his farm to the plaintiff for £1,000. The plaintiff responded with a
counteroffer, offering £950 instead. The defendant then rejected this counteroffer. Later, the plaintiff tried to accept the
defendant's original offer of £1,000, but the defendant refused to sell at that price. lOMoARcPSD|50734573 Issues:
Whether the plaintiff's counteroffer constituted a rejection of the defendant's original offer.
Whether the plaintiff's attempted acceptance of the original offer after making a counteroffer was valid. Ruling:
The court held that the plaintiff's counteroffer constituted a rejection of the defendant's original offer. The counteroffer
terminated the original offer, and therefore, when the plaintiff attempted to accept the original offer afterward, there was no
longer a valid offer to accept.
Scenario 7: Catherine promised her still minor son, Lawrence that if he refrained from smoking and drinking until he
was 21, that she would buy him a Black BMW. Lawrence has just turned 21 but Catherine refuses to buy the Black
BMW, saying that Lawrence not smoking or drinking has been good for his finances as he has some savings and more
importantly his health. Advise Lawrence. Issues:
1. Whether there is a consideration between Catherine and Lawrence?
2. Whether there is a valid contract between Catherine and Lawrence?
3. Whether Catherine owes Lawrence the Black BMW? Rules: 1.
A consideration is something of value, given in exchange for something else of value, that is the product of a
mutuallybargained-for exchange 2.
A valid contract includes: Agreement (valid offer and acceptance), consideration (exchange of value),
contractualcapacity and legal object. lOMoARcPSD|50734573 Hamer v. Sidway
Case: Lampleigh v. Braithwait (1615) Facts:
In Lampleigh v. Braithwait, the defendant, Braithwait, promised to pay Lampleigh a sum of money for securing a pardon
from the king for a crime he had committed. Lampleigh successfully obtained the pardon and then asked Braithwait to fulfill
his promise. However, Braithwait refused to pay, arguing that there was no consideration for his promise. Issues:
Whether Lampleigh's actions in securing the pardon constituted valid consideration for Braithwait's promise to pay.
Whether there was a valid contract between Lampleigh and Braithwait. Ruling:
The court held that even though Lampleigh's actions were performed before the promise to pay was made, they still
constituted valid consideration. This was because there was an expectation of payment at the time the actions were
performed, and the promise to pay was made immediately after the actions were completed. Analysis:
There is a bargain happening between Catherine and her son, Lawrence but there is no exchange of value. This is Conclusion:
1. There is no consideration between Catherine and Lawrence
2. There is no valid contract between Catherine and Lawrence
3. Catherine does not owe Lawrence the Black BMW Scenario 8 •
Fostveit, a construction company, contracted with James and Debra Poplin (The Poplin) to erect a house on
propertyowned by them in Lincoln County, Oregon. The written agreement between the parties stipulated that Fostveit
had six months from the date of the contract's execution to complete the work. Also included in the written agreement
was a liquidated damages clause requiring Fostveit to pay The Poplin $2,000 per day for every day the builder was late
in the completion of its work. •
Fostveit finished construction of the house in seven months, and The Poplin now seeks to recover $60,000
inliquidated damages ($2,000 per day multiplied by 30 days). Fostveit refuses to pay the $60,000. The company's owner,
Richard Black, recalls that, in a conversation during the contract's execution with The Poplin, he had informed that his
company could have as long as nine months to finish the building. The Poplin denies ever having made the statement. •
If the dispute goes to court, would a judge allow the jury to consider Richard Black 's alleged statement regarding
theseven-month completion deadline? Ultimately, does Fostveit owe The Poplin $60,000 in liquidated damages? => IRAC: Issues: lOMoARcPSD|50734573
Whether the alleged oral statement by Richard Black extending the completion deadline to nine months is admissible in court.
Whether Fostveit owes The Poplin $60,000 in liquidated damages for completing the house one month late. Rules:
Parol Evidence Rule: This rule prevents parties to a written contract from presenting extrinsic evidence of terms or
agreements that contradict, modify, or vary the terms of the written contract, especially when the written contract is
intended to be a complete and final expression of their agreement.
Liquidated Damages Clause: A contractual provision that establishes a predetermined amount of damages in the event
of a breach. For such clauses to be enforceable, the amount must be a reasonable estimate of actual damages and not a penalty. Application:
Parol Evidence Rule:
The written agreement between Fostveit and The Poplin specifies a six-month completion period and includes a
liquidated damages clause.
Richard Black’s alleged statement about a nine-month deadline occurred during the execution of the contract and
contradicts the written terms.
Under the Parol Evidence Rule, courts typically exclude oral statements that contradict written agreements if the written
contract is intended to be a complete and final expression of the parties' agreement. The written contract here appears
to be such an expression.
Liquidated Damages Clause:
The written agreement includes a liquidated damages clause of $2,000 per day for each day beyond the six-month deadline.
Fostveit completed the construction in seven months, thus exceeding the deadline by 30 days.
The Poplin seeks $60,000 based on the agreed liquidated damages clause.
Enforceability of Liquidated Damages:
To enforce the liquidated damages clause, the amount must be a reasonable estimate of the damages anticipated at the
time of the contract’s formation.
There is no indication that the $2,000 per day is an unreasonable estimate or a penalty rather than a genuine preestimate
of the damages The Poplin would incur due to the delay. Conclusion: lOMoARcPSD|50734573
Admissibility of Oral Statement:
A judge is unlikely to allow the jury to consider Richard Black's alleged oral statement regarding the nine-month
completion deadline due to the Parol Evidence Rule. The written contract’s terms will prevail.
Owing Liquidated Damages:
Fostveit likely owes The Poplin $60,000 in liquidated damages for the 30-day delay, as specified in the written contract,
assuming the liquidated damages amount is considered reasonable and not punitive.
In conclusion, Fostveit owes The Poplin $60,000 in liquidated damages based on the clear terms of the written contract
and the likely inadmissibility of any contradictory oral statements due to the Parol Evidence Rule.
In this case, DeLong Corporation was contracted to install a telephone system for Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone
Company. The contract included a liquidated damages clause that required DeLong to pay a specified amount for each
day the installation was delayed beyond the agreed completion date. DeLong failed to complete the installation on time,
and Pacific Northwest Bell sought to enforce the liquidated damages clause. Issues:
Whether the liquidated damages clause was enforceable.
Whether any oral agreements or understandings outside of the written contract could affect the enforceability of the
liquidated damages clause. Ruling:
The court held that the liquidated damages clause was enforceable. The amount specified was a reasonable estimate of
the anticipated damages and not a penalty. Additionally, the court applied the Parol Evidence Rule, which barred the
admission of any oral agreements or statements that contradicted the terms of the written contract.
Case 3: Guth v. Loft, Inc. (Supreme Court of Delaware, 23 Del.Ch. 255, 5 A.2d 503 (1939).
Charles Guth was the president of Loft, Inc., a candy and syrup manufacturer, which served a cola drink
at its fountain stores. Loft Inc's Soda fountains purchased cola syrup from The Coca-Cola Company, but
Guth decided it would be cheaper to buy from Pepsi after Coke declined to give him a larger jobber
discount. Pepsi went bankrupt before Guth (and Loft Inc.) could inquire about obtaining syrup from Pepsi.
Guth then personally bought the Pepsi company and its syrup recipe. With the aid of Loft Inc chemists, he
reformulated the recipe and soon purported to sell the syrup to Loft Inc.
He was sued by Loft Inc.'s shareholders, who alleged that he breached his fiduciary duty of loyalty to the company
by failing to offer that opportunity to Loft Inc., instead appropriating it for himself.
Meinhard v. Salmon (1928): In this case, one partner (Salmon) of a real estate business did not notify the
other business partner (Meinhard) of a new investment opportunity until the lease expired, then offer to
cooperate with that person. The court decided that Salmon owed a duty of loyalty to Meinhard during the
partnership, and that failure to disclose the new investment opportunity was a breach of this duty. IRAC analysis: lOMoARcPSD|50734573 - Issue:
Breach of duty of loyalty: Did Guth breach his duty of loyalty to Loft by concealing information about the
Pepsi-Cola acquisition and using company assets for personal gain?
Ownership of the business opportunity: Who does the Pepsi-Cola business belong to: the individual Guth or the Loft?
Use of Company Assets: Did Guth's use of Loft's assets to develop Pepsi-Cola violate the Use of Assets Rule? - Rule + Rules of loyalty:
Delaware General Corporation Law: Article 141(a) provides that executives and directors have a duty to act
"honestly, responsibly, and prudently" in the best interests of the public company.
Require executives and directors to act in the best interests of the company and not to use their positions for
personal gain. Includes tools that can:
Duty to disclose: Disclose to the company any information about a business opportunity that may benefit the company.
Avoid conflicts of interest: Avoid engaging in activities that could create a conflict of interest between themselves and the company. + Opportunity rule:
Delaware General Corporation Law: Article 141(a) provides that the chief executive officer and directors
have a duty to "disclose to the corporation all information about business opportunities that may present benefits for the company".
When an executive or director discovers an opportunity to sell his or her intellectual information at a
company, it makes sense for him or her to present the opportunity to the board so that the company can
decide whether to pursue that opportunity or not. + Rules for using assets:
Delaware General Corporation Law: Article 141(a) states that executives and directors may not use "property
of the corporation for personal purposes."
Executives and directors are prohibited from using company assets for personal purposes. Company assets
must be used for the company's business objectives and to benefit the company. - Analysis: + Violation of loyalty:
Based on the court's ruling, Guth breached his duty of loyalty to Loft.
Guth did not disclose Loft's management agreement to acquire Pepsi-Cola. Guth used Loft's assets,
including employees, time and money, to develop Pepsi-Cola without the permission of the board of
directors. The court determined that Guth acted in his own personal interests instead of Loft's best interests.
+ Ownership of business establishments:
The court decided that the Pepsi-Cola business belonged to Loft. Guth discovered Pepsi-Cola's location
information business at the Loft. Guth used Loft's information and assets to evaluate and develop the lOMoARcPSD|50734573
Pepsi-Cola business. The court determined that Guth could not use Loft's position and assets to pursue his own business opportunities. + Use of company assets:
The court decided that Guth had violated the Property Use Rules.
Guth used Loft's assets, including employees, time, and money, to develop Pepsi-Cola without the
permission of the board of directors. The court determined that Guth used Loft's assets for his personal
purposes, in violation of the Property Use Rules. - Conclusion:
Guth committed a crime of loyalty to Loft by concealing information about the commercial acquisition of Pepsi-Cola
and using company assets for personal gain.
The Pepsi-Cola business belongs to Loft, not Guth personally.
Guth violated property use rules by using Loft's property for personal purposes.
ÁN LỆ (NÊN ĐỌC, CÓ THỂ TRÍCH Ở PHẦN RULE)
Agreement - Precedent (tiền lệ)
I. Fairmount Glass Works v. Cruden-Martin Woodenware Co. Brief Fact Summary.
The buyer sent a request for a list of prices to a seller of Mason Jars. The seller responded to the request with a list of prices.
The buyer responded and wanted the goods shipped pursuant to the quotation. The seller said they ran out of the goods.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Depending on the language parties use, a "price quote" can be treated as an offer. Facts.
On April 20, 1985, the Appellee, Fairmount Glass Works (the "Appellee") wrote a letter to the Appellant, Crunden-Martin
Woodenware Co. (the "Appellant") requesting the best price they could offer for "ten car loads of Mason green jars,
complete, with caps, packed one dozen in a case, either delivered here, or f. o. b. cars your place, as you prefer." On April
23, 1895, the Appellant replied with a quote for three different sizes of jars and information about shipment and payment.
Additionally, the letter said the quotes were "for immediate acceptance." On April 24, 1895, the Appellee responded
"[e]nter order ten loads as per your quotation." Additionally, a provision requiring the "jars and caps to be strictly top quality
goods" was included in the Appellees' response. On April 24, 1895, the Appellant responded via telegraph and said they
could not fill the Appellees order, because they had sold all the goods. The lower court found for the Appellee and the Appellant appealed. Issue.
Is a quotation of prices construed as an offer to sell? Held. lOMoARcPSD|50734573
Sometimes, but it depends on the facts of the case. Here, the court examined the substance of the parties' correspondence.
The court found that although the Appellant used the word "quote", the letter read as a whole, shows it was much more than
a quote. The court observed that when the Appellant responded with a list of prices in his April 23, 1895 letter, he was
responding to the Appellees request. Further, the use of the words "for immediate acceptance", can only be interpreted to
mean the Appellant was willing to sell at the prices specified. As such, the court considered this to be an offer. The court
additionally recognized that since the clause "jars and caps to be strictly top quality goods" was not in the Appellant's offer, they were not bound by it. Discussion.
This case offers an interesting pre-Uniform Commercial Code discussion of how contracts for the sale of goods are construed.
I. Fairmount Glass Works kiện Công ty đồ gỗ Cruden-Martin Tóm
tắt sự thật ngắn gọn.
Người mua đã gửi yêu cầu cung cấp bảng giá cho người bán Mason Jars. Người bán đã trả lời yêu cầu bằng một danh sách
giá cả. Người mua phản hồi và muốn hàng hóa được vận chuyển theo báo giá. Người bán cho biết họ đã hết hàng.
Tóm tắt của Luật pháp.
Tùy thuộc vào ngôn ngữ mà các bên sử dụng, "báo giá" có thể được coi là một đề nghị. Sự thật.
Vào ngày 20 tháng 4 năm 1985, Người kháng cáo, Fairmount Glass Works ("Người kháng cáo") đã viết một lá thư cho
Người kháng cáo, Công ty Đồ gỗ Crunden-Martin ("Người kháng cáo") yêu cầu mức giá tốt nhất mà họ có thể đưa ra cho
"mười xe chở hàng". Những chiếc lọ màu xanh lá cây, đầy đủ, có nắp, được đóng thành chục chiếc trong một thùng, hoặc
được giao đến đây hoặc gửi đến địa điểm của bạn, tùy thích." Vào ngày 23 tháng 4 năm 1895, Người kháng cáo trả lời kèm
theo báo giá cho ba loại lọ có kích cỡ khác nhau và thông tin về việc vận chuyển và thanh toán. Ngoài ra, bức thư cho biết
các báo giá là "để được chấp nhận ngay lập tức." Vào ngày 24 tháng 4 năm 1895, Người kháng cáo trả lời "[e]nter đặt hàng
mười tải theo báo giá của bạn." Ngoài ra, một điều khoản yêu cầu "lọ và nắp phải là hàng hóa có chất lượng hàng đầu" đã
được đưa vào phản hồi của Người kháng cáo. Vào ngày 24 tháng 4 năm 1895, Người kháng cáo trả lời qua điện báo và nói
rằng họ không thể thực hiện đơn đặt hàng của Người kháng cáo vì họ đã bán hết hàng. Tòa án cấp dưới xét xử phúc thẩm
và nguyên đơn kháng cáo. Vấn đề.
Việc báo giá có được hiểu là một lời đề nghị bán không? Cầm.
Đôi khi, nhưng nó phụ thuộc vào sự thật của vụ án. Tại đây, tòa án đã xem xét nội dung thư từ của các bên. Tòa án nhận
thấy rằng mặc dù Người kháng cáo sử dụng từ "trích dẫn", nhưng đọc toàn bộ bức thư cho thấy nó không chỉ là một câu
trích dẫn. Tòa án nhận xét rằng khi Người kháng cáo trả lời bằng bảng giá trong lá thư ngày 23 tháng 4 năm 1895, anh ta lOMoARcPSD|50734573
đang đáp ứng yêu cầu của Người kháng cáo. Hơn nữa, việc sử dụng từ "để chấp nhận ngay lập tức", chỉ có thể được hiểu
là Người kháng cáo sẵn sàng bán ở mức giá đã chỉ định. Vì vậy, tòa coi đây là một lời đề nghị. Tòa án cũng thừa nhận
rằng vì điều khoản "lọ và nắp phải là hàng hóa có chất lượng hàng đầu" không có trong đề nghị của Người kháng
cáo nên họ không bị ràng buộc bởi nó. Cuộc thảo luận.
Trường hợp này đưa ra một cuộc thảo luận thú vị trước Bộ luật Thương mại Thống nhất về cách hiểu các hợp đồng mua bán hàng hóa.
II. Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. (1999) Brief Fact Summary.
PepsiCo (Defendant), advertised Pepsi related paraphernalia, which one could obtain by getting “Pepsi points” by drinking
Pepsi. The commercial featured a youth arriving at school in a Harrier Jet and said the Harrier Jet was 7,000,000 Pepsi
points. Plaintiff tried to obtain the Harrier Jet by sending fifteen Pepsi points and a check for the amount of money needed
to obtain the Harrier jet. Defendant refused to deliver the harrier jet.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
An advertisement, which a reasonable person would not take seriously and refers to other material, is not an offer. Facts.
Defendant ran an advertisement for a promotion in which people could obtain “Pepsi points” by drinking Pepsi and then use
them to purchase items from a catalog. The back of the order form stated that a person could purchase Pepsi points for ten
cents a point. The advertisement featured a Harrier Jet and said it cost 7,000,000 Pepsi points. Plaintiff filled out an order
form, asked for the Harrier Jet, sent in fifteen Pepsi points and approximately $700,000.00 in a check drafted from his
attorney’s trust account. Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff saying the Harrier Jet is not part of the promotion. After some
heated correspondence, between Plaintiff's attorney, Defendant and the advertising agency that produce the advertisement,
Plaintiff filed suit in state court. Issue.
Was the advertisement an offer for a Harrier Jet? Held. No.
The commercial was not an offer because it referred to the catalog. The Harrier Jet was not in the catalog.
The attitude of the advertisement would not lead a reasonable person to believe there was an offer.
There was not writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. Dissent.
This case presented an instance when an advertisement is not an offer. First, the advertisement referred to the catalog, where
the true offer was. Second, the concept was ridiculous. Discussion. lOMoARcPSD|50734573
This case illustrates that when an advertisement that would normally be considered and offer, are so absurd that a reasonable
person would not consider them to be serious, then there is no offer and there cannot be any acceptance. Also worth noting,
is the fact that the advertisement referred viewers to the catalog of Pepsi products where Defendant did not list a Harrier Jet.
This catalog was the true offer.
II. Leonard kiện Pepsico, Inc. (1999) Tóm
tắt sự thật ngắn gọn.
PepsiCo (Bị cáo), đã quảng cáo các đồ dùng liên quan đến Pepsi mà người ta có thể nhận được bằng cách nhận “điểm
Pepsi” khi uống Pepsi. Đoạn quảng cáo có hình ảnh một thanh niên đến trường trên chiếc Harrier Jet và cho biết chiếc
Harrier Jet có giá 7.000.000 điểm Pepsi. Nguyên đơn đã cố gắng có được chiếc máy bay phản lực Harrier Jet bằng cách gửi
mười lăm điểm Pepsi và một tấm séc về số tiền cần thiết để có được chiếc máy bay phản lực Harrier. Bị cáo từ chối giao máy bay phản lực.
Tóm tắt của Luật pháp.
Một quảng cáo mà một người bình thường sẽ không coi trọng và đề cập đến tài liệu khác, không phải là một lời đề nghị. Sự thật.
Bị cáo đã chạy một quảng cáo khuyến mãi trong đó mọi người có thể nhận được “điểm Pepsi” bằng cách uống Pepsi và sau
đó sử dụng chúng để mua các mặt hàng từ một danh mục. Mặt sau của mẫu đơn đặt hàng ghi rằng một người có thể mua
điểm Pepsi với giá 10 xu một điểm. Quảng cáo có hình một chiếc Harrier Jet và cho biết nó có giá 7.000.000 điểm Pepsi.
Nguyên đơn đã điền vào mẫu đơn đặt hàng, yêu cầu mua máy bay phản lực Harrier Jet, gửi 15 điểm Pepsi và khoảng 700.000
USD dưới dạng séc được soạn thảo từ tài khoản ủy thác của luật sư. Bị đơn đã gửi thư cho Nguyên đơn nói rằng Harrier Jet
không nằm trong chương trình khuyến mãi. Sau một số thư từ trao đổi sôi nổi, giữa luật sư của Nguyên đơn, Bị đơn và công
ty quảng cáo sản xuất quảng cáo, Nguyên đơn đã đệ đơn kiện lên tòa án tiểu bang. Vấn đề.
Quảng cáo có phải là lời đề nghị mua máy bay phản lực Harrier không? Cầm. KHÔNG.
Quảng cáo không phải là một lời đề nghị vì nó đề cập đến danh mục. Máy bay phản lực Harrier không có trong danh mục.
Thái độ của quảng cáo sẽ không khiến một người có lý trí tin rằng có một lời đề nghị.
Không có văn bản nào đáp ứng Quy chế gian lận.
Bất đồng quan điểm.
Trường hợp này trình bày một ví dụ khi quảng cáo không phải là một ưu đãi. Đầu tiên, quảng cáo đề cập đến danh mục, nơi
có lời đề nghị thực sự. Thứ hai, khái niệm này thật lố bịch. Cuộc thảo luận.