Ch 5 Cases for Discussion (1)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
York University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MISC
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by MasterFreedomDinosaur40
Cases for Discussion
Case #1
Oyak owned three building units (A, B and C) in a commercial development. As a result
of some financial difficulties, he e-mails to Asya as follows "I will sell you one of my units
for $150,000. Asya immediately e-mails back “I accept your offer".
(a)
Was Oyak’s e-mail an offer? Why or why not?
ANS:
The offer is a clear expression of the intention to enter into a contract and contains
all the material terms of the contract. In this case, Oyak has clearly expressed his
intention to sell one of his own units (his one unit, to be precise) to Asya for his
$150,000. Execution of a contract generally requires offer, acceptance, consideration,
legal capacity and mutual consent. This indicates your clear and unambiguous
acceptance
of
the
terms.
(b) Is an e-mail exchange such as this one valid in forming a contract?
ANS:
Communication between the parties was clear and unambiguous and met the
requirements of mutual consent. ), this exchange of emails results in a valid contract
between Oyak and Asya to sell the building unit for his US$150,000.
Case #2
A friend buys you a cup of coffee at Tim Horton’s during “Roll Up the Rim” time.
You roll
up the rim and win the grand prize.
(a)
Is the prize yours to keep?
ANS:
As the winner, you are entitled to the benefits and ownership of the prize.
(b)
Do you and your friend have to share the prize?
ANS:
The act of your friend buying you a cup of coffee during the ‘‘Roll Up the Rim‘‘
time does not create any legal obligation or entitlement for your friend to share in the
prize. The purchase of the coffee can be considered a gift or a gesture of goodwill,
but it does not give your friend any claim or right to the prize you won. Since your
friend did not win the prize, they do not have any legal right to claim or keep it.
(c)
Is the prize your friend’s to keep?
ANS:
Your friend's purchase of the coffee does not grant them any ownership or
entitlement to the prize.
Case #3
Monica invited Navjot to the college New Year dinner and dance.
Navjot accepted the
invitation and agreed to accompany Monica who purchased the tickets and arranged a
limo.
Two days before the dance, Navjot tells Monica that he is no longer interested in
going to the dance with her.
(a)
What contract formation issue could determine whether a contract has been
formed?
ANS:
Navjot`s agreement to accompany Monica can also be seen as
consideration since he agreed to go to the dance with her. Whether there was
valid consideration exchanged between the parties would be a crucial factor in
determining
if
a
contract
has
been
formed.
(b)
Would a court make a decision requiring Navjot to go to the dance with
Monica?
ANS:
The reason is that attending a social event like a college New Year dinner
and dance is typically a matter of personal choice and not something that can
be compelled by a court. While Navjot initially accepted the invitation and
agreed to accompany Monica, his subsequent change of heart, communicated
two days before the event, indicates a revocation of his agreement. In general,
courts are reluctant to enforce specific performance in personal matters and
would not typically force someone to attend a social event against their will.
Case #4
Hector went on vacation for several weeks. While Hector was away his neighbour,
Gianna, decided to weed and maintain his large vegetable and flower gardens, as well
as cut the grass in his large backyard several times.
On his return, Hector was delighted with the way his backyard and gardens looked. He
told Gianna to come by his house on Friday and he would give her $300.00 for having
done such an excellent job, especially with the grass cutting. On Friday Gianna knocked
on Hector’s door as requested but Hector, having had second thoughts about the
money, told her he had changed his mind and she should take her mower and ride!
(a) Explain whether Gianna can force Hector to pay her the $300.00.
ANS:
Promissory estoppel is a principle that prevents a person from going back on
their promise if the other party relies on that promise to their detriment. If Gianna can
demonstrate that she relied on Hector`s promise and incurred a detriment (such as
investing time, effort, and resources), she may have a valid claim for promissory
estoppel, and a court could enforce Hector's promise to pay her the $300.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
(b) On what basis would the amount of money to be paid to Gianna be determined if
there was a contract present but Hector and Gianna never discussed the price
for her services?
ANS:
If there was a contract present between Hector and Gianna, but they never
discussed the price for her services, the amount of money to be paid to Gianna
would be determined based on the concept of reasonable value or reasonable
compensation. When parties enter into a contract, but the price is not explicitly
discussed, courts often look at what would be a reasonable and fair amount for the
services rendered. The court would consider factors such as the nature of the work,
customary rates for similar services, market value, and any other relevant
circumstances to determine a reasonable amount to be paid to Gianna for her
services.