Posted: August 9th, 2022

Contract Law

Contract Law

Name

Institution

Date

Question 1 (A)
Yes. Offer and acceptance must take place for a contract to be formed, from the scenario above there was indeed an offer by Sal which was to remain open until January 15. In the offer letter, Sal expressly indicated that the offer would not be withdrawn before January 15. Therefore, Sal’s revocation through a letter mailed to Bay on November 10 is null. Further, the postal rule of acceptance dictates that where a party has expressly or impliedly authorized the offeree to communicate acceptance by mail, the acceptance is deemed complete when the letter is posted whether it reaches its destination or not. Here, Sal had by implication authorized Bay to communicate acceptance by mail since the entire communication had been made through mail. Bay can therefore be successful in her law suit for breach of contract since there’s non-performance of an obligation by Sal (Schwartz & Scott, 2010).
Question 1 (B)
Yes. In such case, Bay would not be successful in his lawsuit against Bay for a breach of contract. This is because in this case Bay’s acceptance would have been void. Despite the fact that Bay mailed a letter to Sal on January 12, due to an unexpected snowstorm Sal did not receive the letter until January 18. Therefore, assuming that Sal had added that any acceptance of his offer must have been received in his office by 5pm on January 15 would render Bay’s acceptance ineffective.
Question 2 (A)
No, Josh cannot sue Rosa for the remaining $3000.Josh did not perform his obligations according to the doctrine of precise and exactness since he used inferior materials and Rosa did not like the overall outlook. Therefore, Josh can only be entitled to $17,000 for substantial performance. Also, he endorsed and cashed the check without making notations hence accepting it as payment in full satisfaction.
Question 2 (B)
Yes. By adding a notation such as “Under Protest” Josh would be able to sue Rosa for the extra $3,000 since he would not have endorsed the check as full satisfaction and payment of contract for design service.
Question 3 (A)
The essence of rescission of a contract tis to restore the parties into the position they were before the contract Kem would Sue on the basis of the vitiating factor of fraudulent misrepresentation by Lily (Beheshti, 2019). This is a false representation made by a party to induce the other to enter into a contractual agreement and it renders the contract voidable at the option of the I injured party. However, Ken will have to prove that, Lily being an expert in 20th century art had knowledge that the art was not genuine, that she being an expert owed Ken a duty of care and that Ken relied on the expertise of Lily and that was fundamental in his decision on whether to enter into a contract.
Question 3 (b)
Yes, Ken would be successful in his claim as fraudulent misrepresentation renders a contract voidable at his option. His claim is to avoid it and therefore this would be successful.
Question 3 (c)
No, the essence of rescission is not to acquire damages but to restore the parties back to their initial position before entering into a contractual agreement. Therefore, only money paid would be recoverable but he would not be entitled to damages.
Question 4 (a)
This is false-pricing under consumer law (Bachvarova, 2019). It arises in instances where the purchaser, for instance in this case, Harris, does not know the value of the subject matter say the bookstore. This is actionable but, in an instance, where it is an agreement or contract, it cannot be actionable.
Question 4 (b)
Harris will be successful in her lawsuit. Under contracts in restraint of trade, the court would consider whether the restraint was reasonably necessary in as to protect the business interests of the restraining party (McKendrick, 2014). In this instance, the restraint was reasonably necessary to the restraining Harris as setting up of another bookstore would see Harris sales dwindle. Also, the court will consider whether the restraint was reasonable to the party being restrained. In this case the restraint was reasonable to him and he is in fact the one who created it.

References
Schwartz, A., & Scott, R. E. (2010). Contract theory and the limits of contract law. Yale LJ, 113, 541.
McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).
Bachvarova, M. (2019). Development of Contract Law. Available at SSRN 3450559.
Beheshti, R. (2019). The absence of choice of law in commercial contracts: problems and solutions. Uniform Law Review, 24(3), 497-519.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Contract Law