Moot Speech

Case 9 deals with a homeowner (the principle) who lists her property for sale and enters into an agreement with an agent to facilitate a sale with a third party. Over the course of the agency agreement a prospective buyer inspected the property but didn’t make an offer before the agency agreement expired. The legal issue that arises comes after the agency agreement expires. The prospective buyer later decided to put in an offer, which was accepted, but once discovering that the agreement between the principle and agent had expired brought legal action against the agent.

The decision of the tribunal was that the appellant was found guilty of having acted with dishonesty when he relied on the documents, but not when he created them, here he was charged with lack of integrity. The court had to therefore consider what the definition of the words ‘dishonesty’ and ‘integrity’ was.

The area of Law concerned in this case is The Law of Contract specifically relating to the revocation of an offer and counter offers. The case Wolf and Wolf vs Forfar Potato Co Ltd (1984) directly links to the case between Bruce and Ken. As Bruce is once again dealing with the Law of Contract specifically the non-acceptance of an offer, he is under no legal obligation to sell Ken the rare vinyl at the original price of £40. When Ken rejected the original offer he created a counter offer which in Scots law is a completely new offer and caused Bruce’s original offer to lapse and was up to Bruce to decide wether or not to accept the new terms, after Bruce rejected the counter offer all offers between Bruce and Ken had lapsed. When Ken came back insisting that there was a contract between them and he was entitled to the album Bruce was in fact under no legal requirement to give Ken the vinyl as all offers had lapsed and no contract existed between then.

Issue 1: The trial court deemed that “in electing to forestall the declaration of a breach of contract in an attempt to secure the performance of the defendants thereto, was reasonable and it was proper under the circumstances for plaintiff to set a reasonable time in which defendants were required to complete the contract”. Wendling, the plaintiff set the date of September 21st, 1973, which the court found reasonable since within the letter sent September 11th gave the defendants 10 days to act.

Was the release signed under circumstances which were unconscionable, so as to consequently cause the release to become unenforceable and set aside?

Analysis: This situation should belong to Offer and Acceptance Section. An offer is not valid until it is received by the offered, and the offeror is not limited by the offer until such time as it is accepted according to Communication of an Offer. So in this case, Bishop received the letter on May 3rd, before May 3rd, it is not bounded. On may 22nd, Bishop wrote to this company and accepted this offer. According to Acceptance of an Offer, the acceptance must take the form if certain words or acts in accordance with the offer that will indicate to the offeror that the offeree has accepted the offer. In addition, the acceptance of the offer takes place when the letter of acceptance, properly addressed and the postage paid, is placed in the postbox or post office. So for Bishop (defendant), it obeys the rules of an offer and acceptance. For Armstrong Aggregates Company (plaintiff), they cannot change their offer by increasing the offer because Bishop had already accepted the offer and sent to this company on May 22nd. Meanwhile, the company did not communicate with Bishop about change the price. Therefore, this action is not valid and this company should still accept this offer at $180.

Here the offer was definite in its terms because the department store included subject matter, price, and quantity in its advertisement. The terms and conditions written in the department store’s advertisement states, “8 baseball caps, assorted logos Out they go Saturday, October 19, each . . . $3.00” and “1 gold dolphin necklace on a 20-inch chain Worth $135.00 Now selling for $30.00 FIRST COME . . . FIRST SERVED.” In this statement a price and quantity are included, $3.00 for the 8 caps and a price of $30.00 for the necklace on a 20in chain is specifically stated for sale on Saturday, October 19th. The items themselves are

21) A(n) ________ may occur if a major shareholder desires to sell a large number of shares but the market for the shares is not sufficiently liquid to sustain such a large sale without severely affecting the price.

Although Amy did not accept the offer from Dr Hu to purchase her medical equipment in the prescribed form of post, her acceptance is still valid. It was suggested that ‘where the offeror has prescribed a particular method of acceptance, but not in terms insisting that only acceptance in that mode shall be binding, that acceptance communicated to the offeror by any other mode which is no less advantageous to him will conclude the contract’ . Therefore suggesting that even though Amy did not respond via post as was asked by Dr Hu, the wording in Dr Hu’s email said that ‘you can respond’, can meaning that it was not specified as the only means of accepting the offer, and that other means of acceptance would be seen to form a binding agreement between the two parties. As Amy’s email was in no way less advantageous to Dr Hu it can be seen as a valid acceptance of the offer that was put to Amy. Amy sent her email of acceptance to the email that she received the email from, which conforms with Section 13A(a) of the Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (NSW) which states ‘the time of receipt of the electronic communication is the time when the electronic communication becomes capable of being retrieved by the addressee at an electronic address designated by the addressee’

Every contract is based on the concept of agreement. A contract is defined as a legal agreement consisting of exchange of promises which is recognized by law as giving rise to enforceable rights and obligations. The test of agreement is used to ensure whether or not there is a contract between the parties. Whereas the objective test ensures certainty, the same cannot be said about the subjective test of agreement. The objective test of agreement is when the court decides whether there is contract based on the outward appearance of what constitutes the contract. However the subjective test of agreement involves trying to establish whether there was a “meeting of minds” when the contract was made. That is, to try to figure out the mental state of mind of the parties involved during the time the contract was made.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE: By the end of my speech, my audience will know the history of Walt Disney, his invention of Disney World, and how his invention has impacted people.

Introduction: In this assignment I will go over a few legal terms in relation to contract law. I will also talk about a few precedents that help explain the law.

In this case, it is essential to whether the action of HFC that inviting season ticket holder to renew for next season is an offer or not. In some point of view, it should be an offer. it can also be an invitation to treat without the certain term of price of £700 for all applications received before May 5th , so the contract is legal binding automatically when offer accepted by offeree.

The postal rule was developed to facilitate contracting at a distance. Initially, bargaining at a distance often posed a great challenge to bargaining parties especially through the postal services. This was mainly because via the mail parties could not know simultaneously whether they had reached an agreement. As a result a general rule indicating the time of an acceptance had to be established. Consequently the postal acceptance rule was developed .The postal rule function to create an exception to the general rule, which stipulates that an acceptance will only be effective upon receipt

ANSWERS TO QUESTION 1 OF CONTRACTS EXAM Exam 5003 – AThe letter sent by B was an offer. An offer may be defined as a communication, having sufficient definiteness to eliminate the need for further negotiation, and creating the impression of manifest intent to enter into a K. An offer may be made to the general public, as in a mass mailing or advertisement, or to an individual. The letter was sufficiently definite. It provided the description of the product, a price, and a quantity. The quantity, while not particular, first created the impression of a great many pieces available. Second, it operated as an offer for a requirement K by UCC 2306. Such a requirement K need not be explicit in the quantity; it is