Offer and Acceptance in the Courts Essays

== == == == =

The Canadian legal system was influenced dramatically by the Persons case, the Napoleonic code and the Magna Carta. First, the Persons case significantly influenced the Law system as known today. The Persons case, which took place in 1926 was regarding Emily Murphy, an Alberta police magistrate, otherwise known as a judge. While judging a case, her ruling was challenged because according to the British North America Act, women weren’t considered “persons.” In order to change this, Emily Murphy along with the Alberta Famous five started the legal process to prove that women were persons in 1928. The Famous five took the government to court, first at provincial level, then the Supreme Court, however they were unsuccessful. In 1929, the women

In week four’s theory practice, we reviewed the case scenario of Big Time Toymaker vs Chou in regards to determining the validity of a contract.  As we’ve reviewed, an agreement or mutual assent is of course essential to a valid contract but the law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts. If his words and acts, judged by a reasonable standard, manifest an intention to agree, it is immaterial what may be the real but unexpressed state of his mind (Melvin, 2010).

A contract is an agreement that creates obligations that are enforceable by the law. A contract can either be written or spoken. There are elements to a contract that make it valid and binding. This is defined as a clear manifestation of willingness to enter an agreement made by another person with full understanding that their assent to the bargain is an invitation and is concluded. As to whether there was an offer in this case, yes there is an offer. When the salesman offered the buyers time for a test drive and they finally chose and agreed to buy the blue car it was a clear offer.

According to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which of the following is not a reason to allow corporations the right to spend money and advertise for political candidates?

= = = = =

Lonergan v. Scolnick tells us that advertisements are simply “manifestations of willingness to enter into a bargain,” but are not meant to “justify another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it,” as offers do (Restatement 2nd §24). Therefore, the advertisement is not considered to be an offer to sell the vehicle at the stated price. Under Common Law, ABC Motors would be able to refuse to sell the car at the mistaken price of $25,000. However, in New Jersey, advertisements for the sale of automobiles are governed by a statute, New Jersey Vehicle Code § 4251, stating, “A dealer of automobiles in this state may not decline or refuse to sell an automobile to any person at an advertised price while the vehicle remains unsold, unless the advertisement states the advertised total price is good for only a specified period of time and that time has elapsed.” As this statute would trump the common law practice of advertisements not being offers, ABC Motors’ advertisement is considered an offer that cannot be revoked while the vehicle remains unsold and the expiration of the offer has not lapsed.

== == == == ==

The offer and acceptance model is flawed- only an agreement is necessary. In order to fully comprehend this statement, we must first establish what constitutes and offer and what constitutes acceptance. “An offer is a statement by one party of willingness to enter into a contract on stated terms, provided that these terms are, in turn, accepted by the party to whom the offer is addressed”. Acceptance is “…an unqualified expression of ascent to the terms proposed by the offeror”. The “Offer and acceptance model” is based on the court’s adopt the “mirror image” rule of contractual formation. Applying the definitions stated above, we can take this to mean that there must be a clear and unequivocal offer which must be matched by an equally

Since the last report I have continued to experience a lot more cases and different types of courts. The different courts range from drug court, veterans court, mental health court, recovery court, and so forth. Recently I experienced my first veteran’s court, which I saw two very familiar faces. I actually got to see Denise who works at the VA and Carl who is a probation officer for the veterans. They came and gave a presentation when I had your Interpersonal Relations class fall semester. They are very well respected and take their job very seriously. One of the veterans were graduating from the program offered to veterans when they commit a crime. The court was decorated with a lot of American flags to show support of the veterans who have fought for our country.

     You have asked me to determine whether our client Diana Lewis committed unauthorized practice of law by providing her services. I have done research on statutes and cases. This memorandum will address the issue of this case, California Bar’s claim, and Ms. Lewis’s possible defense.

In this example, an agreement has not been made. The ad that Pete placed in the Auto Trader is simply an offer to do business and not an offer to enter into a contract. The ad “1989 Pontiac Sunbird for sale - $6,000” is an advertisement to attract potential buyers and to initiate negotiations for a contract of sale. Paul provided a response to the ad by offering to pay $6,000 for the vehicle, which then provides Pete the option of accepting or denying the offer.

-If advertisement limits possible number of persons able to accept ‘offer’ then can be an offer

On Tuesday the 28th of February our Introduction to the Legal Process class went to the Maine Legislature and had the chance to meet some Representatives and Senators that we had contacted previously. We had studied lobbying and how to effectively lobby a bill beforehand, and met with the officials we had contacted individually. This is some information that could help you lobby a bill in the Maine legislature.

There are two types of offer; specific and general. Specific offers are those made by one person or group of people who can choose to accept, and general offers are made to a generalised majority, such as in rewards and public advertisements. In the case of CARLILL v CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL, a general offer had been made, as it was a publicised advert. The company did not comply with the terms that it had stated; therefore the court held that the contract had been breached as an offer had been made. It was rightly decided that most offers