Mary has lost her lamb. On Sunday, she ran an ad in the local paper offering $2000 to anyone who has information that would lead to the return of her lamb. On Monday, as he was leaving his village store on a four day business trip, Noah saw a lamb behind some barrels in the alley behind the store. Since he was late, he scribbled a note with the directionsBut Mary was not home. She wrote a note and stuck it under Mary's door. Mary was despondent about her lamb and spent Tuesday night commiserating with her. Mr Matilda's not returning home until Wednesday morning. Passing by the village store, however, she heard a little bleat and could hardly believe her eyes when she saw her beloved lamb standing in front of her. Nor did she notice that the lamb, hungrier than usual, ate Chili's note that was on the floor as they entered their house on Thursday. John remembered that he had seen a lamb at the village store earlier that week and hurried over to Mary's house, only to find the lamb already there. Mary met U with Amir a week later, and Amir confessed to her that he had forgotten to give her the note from Noah. In the meantime, Amir had spent $50.00 on candies and flowers for Mary, thinking he'd get it back from Noah. Mary is happy about getting her land back, but now she hears about the story of Noah, Jill and Amir, all of whom saw her lamb or knew where it was and tried to contact her about it. She and Amir have come to you for some advice. She wants to know if she might have to pay any of them the $2000 she had offered as a reward. Amir wants to know if he will be able to collect the $50.00 Noah promised. And Mary wants to know if she may keep the candies and flowers.Based on your readings so far, who do you think legally deserves to be paid and why? Before writing your answer, you may want to consider some of the following issues.Are the parties involved in this case required to perform their contractual duties in good faith? If so, what does good faith in contracts mean? For the sake of discussion, say Amir sent Mary a text message via his mobile but Mary, who was very depressed, did not open it until she found the lamb herself. Does she have to pay Noah? Do courts in Canada recognize texts message as a binding contract? Can you think of any relevant Canadian case law? You may want to have a quick look at the Electronic Commerce Act, 2000 S.O. 2000.Say that Amir developed symptoms of COVID-19 and for this reason he was not able to deliver the note in person. Does COVID-19 impact Amir's contractual obligations and if so how? Is it possible to characterize Mary's deal as a Unilateral Contract? If so, could you tell us a bit more about this type of contracts, preferably citing some relevant Canadian case law?Love, Sickness, Law and Business Contracts ▷ Who do you think legally deserves to be paid, and why? To consider 'some' of the questions that might be relevant to this case, click here.
Mary has lost her lamb. On Sunday, she ran an ad in the local paper offering $2000 to anyone who has information that would lead to the return of her lamb. On Monday, as he was leaving his village store on a four day business trip, Noah saw a lamb behind some barrels in the alley behind the store. Since he was late, he scribbled a note with the directions
But Mary was not home. She wrote a note and stuck it under Mary's door. Mary was despondent about her lamb and spent Tuesday night commiserating with her. Mr Matilda's not returning home until Wednesday morning. Passing by the village store, however, she heard a little bleat and could hardly believe her eyes when she saw her beloved lamb standing in front of her. Nor did she notice that the lamb, hungrier than usual, ate Chili's note that was on the floor as they entered their house on Thursday. John remembered that he had seen a lamb at the village store earlier that week and hurried over to Mary's house, only to find the lamb already there. Mary met U with Amir a week later, and Amir confessed to her that he had forgotten to give her the note from Noah. In the meantime, Amir had spent $50.00 on candies and flowers for Mary, thinking he'd get it back from Noah. Mary is happy about getting her land back, but now she hears about the story of Noah, Jill and Amir, all of whom saw her lamb or knew where it was and tried to contact her about it. She and Amir have come to you for some advice. She wants to know if she might have to pay any of them the $2000 she had offered as a reward. Amir wants to know if he will be able to collect the $50.00 Noah promised. And Mary wants to know if she may keep the candies and flowers.
Based on your readings so far, who do you think legally deserves to be paid and why? Before writing your answer, you may want to consider some of the following issues.
Are the parties involved in this case required to perform their contractual duties in good faith? If so, what does good faith in contracts mean?
For the sake of discussion, say Amir sent Mary a text message via his mobile but Mary, who was very depressed, did not open it until she found the lamb herself. Does she have to pay Noah? Do courts in Canada recognize texts message as a binding contract? Can you think of any relevant Canadian case law? You may want to have a quick look at the Electronic Commerce Act, 2000 S.O. 2000.
Say that Amir developed symptoms of COVID-19 and for this reason he was not able to deliver the note in person. Does COVID-19 impact Amir's contractual obligations and if so how?
Is it possible to characterize Mary's deal as a Unilateral Contract? If so, could you tell us a bit more about this type of contracts, preferably citing some relevant Canadian case law?
Love, Sickness, Law and Business Contracts ▷ Who do you think legally deserves to be paid, and why? To consider 'some' of the questions that might be relevant to this case, click here.
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
