From 8dd90406f7acbeeba2f63e103d95f30f5a0840a3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Googl Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 00:54:34 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] linebreaks --- Documents/Business_Law/Business_Law_CW3.t2t | 331 +++++++++++++++++----------- Documents/Business_Law/Business_Law_CW3.txt | 331 +++++++++++++++++----------- 2 files changed, 400 insertions(+), 262 deletions(-) rewrite Documents/Business_Law/Business_Law_CW3.t2t (77%) rewrite Documents/Business_Law/Business_Law_CW3.txt (77%) diff --git a/Documents/Business_Law/Business_Law_CW3.t2t b/Documents/Business_Law/Business_Law_CW3.t2t dissimilarity index 77% index ba13402..775bc62 100644 --- a/Documents/Business_Law/Business_Law_CW3.t2t +++ b/Documents/Business_Law/Business_Law_CW3.t2t @@ -1,131 +1,200 @@ -Issues - - -Issue 1 - - -Claude was selling his 2011 Honda CRV for $3m. The offer was open from June 1 to June 8. But, between June 5 and 6, the car was sold. The offer to one of the offerees was withdrawn on June 7 by phone call. - - -Issue 2 - - -Mardi Gras hotel offers rooming. However, another term of agreement is added after registering, by way of a notice over the bed in the room. - - -Glossary of Principles and Rules - - -Acceptance: - -Agreement: - -Invitation to Treat: - -Breach of a condition: - -Consideration: - -Contract: - -Offer: - -Postal rule: - -Rights of Third Parties: - -Express terms: - -Pre-contractual statement: - -Counter-offer: - -Mere representations: - -Fraudulent misrepresentation: - -Breach of a condition: - -Self-induced frustration: - -Voidable contract: - -Invitation to Treat: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Cases - - - Claude vs Sheryl - -Sheryl bought the car from Marty. There was no evidence of prior knowledge of Claude’s offer or of her knowing Claude. - - Rules/Principles applied - -Claude did not communicate the offer to Sheryl. The rules of offer stipulate: - - the offer must be communicated to the offeree - the offeree must have knowlede of the offer for it to be valid and enforceable - Claude vs Marty - -On June 5, Marty responded to the advertisement from Claude. While pretending to be Mr. Markland, “he gave Claude a cheque for $2.6m and drove away the car.” The cheque was dishonoured; Claude also discovered that Marty was not Mr. Markland. Claude had not asked for identification. Marty sold the car to Sheryl and “absconded with the money”. - -Rules/Principles applied - -This was not a contract. It was an Invitation to Treat. - - Claude vs Jen - -Jen received the letter on June 1. He immediately phoned Claude, but got his answering machine. Jen left a message “stating that he would pay $2.5 for the vehicle”. Jen then waited for a response from Claude, but, “not wanting to lose the car, left another message saying he would pay $3m. Claude retrieved both messages on June 3.” - - Claude vs Sonia - -On June 1, Claude received a letter stating her interest in buying the car, that “she wanted an expert to give his opinion on the vehicle,” and with a cheque for $1m, showing her commitment in buying the car. In the letter, she also requested that Claude not show the car to anyone until June 8. On receiving the cheque, Claude immediately lodged it in his bank account. - - Claude vs Harris - -Harris saw Claude’s letter on June 7. Claude called Harris 5 minutes later and personally withdrew his offer to sell him the car. “Harris still proceeded to post his letter of acceptance on June 8 to Claude.” - - Claude vs Mardi Gras Hotel - -Claude checked in and registered at the Mardi Gras Hotel. He went to his room where he saw a very large notice over the bed, stating “The hotel is not liable for any losses and/or damage suffered by any guests while on the property.” - -“He left his gold watch and bracelet in the room and went to dinner. He gave the key to the receptionist for safekeeping”. Upon his return to his room, “he discovered that the jewellery and other important documents were missing.” The hotel denies liability for the loss of his items. - - -Advice - + +%Subject: Business Law Coursework 2 +%Student Info: Carey Riley, ID# MO/10/7220/MS +%!encoding: uft-8 +=Issues= + +==Issue 1== + +Claude was selling his 2011 Honda CRV for $3m. The offer was open from June 1 to +June 8, to 3 parties: Sonia, Jen and Harris. + +Between June 5 and 6, the car was sold to a new party who was not a part of the +original contract. + +The offer to one of the offerees was withdrawn on June 7 by phone call. + +==Issue 2== + +Mardi Gras hotel offers rooming. However, another term of agreement is added after +registering, by way of a notice over the bed in the room. + +==================== + +=Glossary of Principles and Rules= + +: Acceptance: +Any communicated, unconditional act that makes the offerer aware of the offerees +intention of taking an offer. + +: Agreement: +A valid offer followed by a valid acceptance. + +: Breach of a condition: +failure to perform an obligation according to an established condition in contract. + +: Condition: +a term of a contract that played an important part in the formation of the contract and +which, when unfulfilled may result in the ending of the contract (repudiation) or the +fullest range of remedies. + +: Consideration: +"some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, +detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other" during +formation of the contract. + +: Contract: +an agreement where a valid offer is followed by a valid acceptance. + +: Counter-offer: +a term or offer made by the offeree which gives the offerer a choice in accepting or +refusing (hence cancelling formation of the contract). + +: Exclusion clause: +a term in a contract that seeks to limit or exclude liability of the contract breach. + +: Fraudulent misrepresentation: +when a party knowingly falsifies a representation made at or before the time of the contract. + +: Frustration: +an event beyond the control of either party that prevents the performance of a contract. + +: Invitation to Treat: +an invitation to other parties to make an offer, usually to buy. The contract is formed by +the agreement to sell, which is taken as acceptance. + +: Mere representations: +a factual representation by one party intended to induce the other party enter the contract, +but said representation is not meant to form part of the contract, and hence has no further +contractual significance. + +: Offer: +communicated, specific terms set to be accepter by other party and ends on acceptance, proper +withrawal, lapse of time, or/and death of one of the parties. + +: Postal rule: +acceptance of an offer by way of posting a letter of acceptance. The offer is agreed to on post +-- not receipt -- of the letter. + +: Pre-contractual statement: +any statement made at or during formation of a contract. + +: Representation: +Statements made before or athe time of contracting. + +: Self-induced frustration: +frustration occuring within the control of one party. + +: Speculative damages: +awarding damages according to a recreation of what would have been but for the breach of contract. + +: Voidable contract: +a contract with factors present at formation -- possibly unknown to one or either party -- that lack +the essential characteristics of voluntary agreement, is based on misinformation or runs contrary of +the law. + + +==================== + +=Cases= + +==Claude vs Sheryl== + +Sheryl bought the car from Marty. There was no evidence of prior knowledge of Claude’s offer or of her +knowing Claude. + +===Rules/Principles applied=== + +Claude did not communicate the offer to Sheryl. The rules of offer state: + + - the offer must be communicated to the offeree + - the offeree must have knowlede of the offer for it to be valid and enforceable + + +==Claude vs Marty== + +On June 5, Marty responded to the advertisement from Claude. While pretending to be Mr. Markland, “he +gave Claude a cheque for $2.6m and drove away the car.” The cheque was dishonoured; Claude also +discovered that Marty was not Mr. Markland. Claude had not asked for identification. Marty sold the +car to Sheryl and “absconded with the money”. + +===Rules/Principles applied=== + +This was not a contract. It was an Invitation to Treat. Hence, making Marty the offerer and Claude +the offeree. + +Marty is guilty of 2 instances of fraudulent misrepresentation: + + pretending to be Mr. Markland + + ending the contract with a fake cheque. + +Even though this has happened, the discovery of the fact after the offer had passed on to another +party in a separate contract leaves no option but to sue Marty for damages, or to get the car back +plus suing for damages. + + +==Claude vs Jen== + +Jen received the letter on June 1. He immediately phoned Claude, but got his answering machine. +Jen left a message “stating that he would pay $2.5 for the vehicle”. Jen then waited for a response +from Claude, but, “not wanting to lose the car, left another message saying he would pay $3m. +Claude retrieved both messages on June 3.” + +===Rules/Principles applied=== +Jen cancelled entering a contract when he made a counter-offer of $2.5. + +==Claude vs Sonia== + +On June 1, Claude received a letter stating her interest in buying the car, that “she wanted an +expert to give his opinion on the vehicle,” and with a cheque for $1m, showing her commitment in +buying the car. In the letter, she also requested that Claude not show the car to anyone until +June 8. On receiving the cheque, Claude immediately lodged it in his bank account. + +===Rules/Principles applied=== + + Sonia used postal acceptance. + + Sonia used the rule of consideration by paying $1m as a commitment. + + Sonia entered the contract with the conditions that the car not be shown to anyone (no +Invitation to Treat) until June 8 and that she would bring a third party to give his expert opinion +on the car. Claude agreed to both when he deposited the checque. + + +==Claude vs Harris== + +Harris saw Claude’s letter on June 7. Claude called Harris 5 minutes later and personally withdrew +his offer to sell him the car. “Harris still proceeded to post his letter of acceptance on June 8 +to Claude.” + +===Rules/Principles applied=== +Claude personally ended the contract with Harris by withdrawing the offer. The letter was not posted +as yet. Therefore, the contract does not extend to Harris. + +==Claude vs Mardi Gras Hotel== + +Claude checked in and registered at the Mardi Gras Hotel. He went to his room where he saw a very +large notice over the bed, stating “The hotel is not liable for any losses and/or damage suffered by +any guests while on the property.” + +“He left his gold watch and bracelet in the room and went to dinner. He gave the key to the receptionist +for safekeeping”. Upon his return to his room, “he discovered that the jewellery and other important +documents were missing.” The hotel denies liability for the loss of his items. + +===Rules/Principles applied=== +Mardi Gras Hotel had a representation (an exclusion clause) that had no bearing on the contract, since +the contract agreed to at check in made no mention of the liability clause. There was not enough notice +of the clause. The clause also was not clearly addressed to any party. + +==================== + +=Advice= + +With regards to Sonia: the contract is voidable by Sonia. Sonia can also sue for damages. Claude breached +the conditions set forth by Sonia in order for her to accept the contract: he advertised the car and +frustrated the terms by losing the vehicle. + +The car is now legally Sheryl's. His only remediation would come from Marty. Otherwise, he has no right +to the car. + +Harris and Jen are out of the contract. Jen due to his counter-offer and Harris due to a withdrawal of +the offer. + +With regards to Mardi Gras Hotel he may sue for Remedy of Speculative Damages. He may be able to use this +case to his advantage in clearing the case with Sonia. diff --git a/Documents/Business_Law/Business_Law_CW3.txt b/Documents/Business_Law/Business_Law_CW3.txt dissimilarity index 77% index ba13402..775bc62 100644 --- a/Documents/Business_Law/Business_Law_CW3.txt +++ b/Documents/Business_Law/Business_Law_CW3.txt @@ -1,131 +1,200 @@ -Issues - - -Issue 1 - - -Claude was selling his 2011 Honda CRV for $3m. The offer was open from June 1 to June 8. But, between June 5 and 6, the car was sold. The offer to one of the offerees was withdrawn on June 7 by phone call. - - -Issue 2 - - -Mardi Gras hotel offers rooming. However, another term of agreement is added after registering, by way of a notice over the bed in the room. - - -Glossary of Principles and Rules - - -Acceptance: - -Agreement: - -Invitation to Treat: - -Breach of a condition: - -Consideration: - -Contract: - -Offer: - -Postal rule: - -Rights of Third Parties: - -Express terms: - -Pre-contractual statement: - -Counter-offer: - -Mere representations: - -Fraudulent misrepresentation: - -Breach of a condition: - -Self-induced frustration: - -Voidable contract: - -Invitation to Treat: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Cases - - - Claude vs Sheryl - -Sheryl bought the car from Marty. There was no evidence of prior knowledge of Claude’s offer or of her knowing Claude. - - Rules/Principles applied - -Claude did not communicate the offer to Sheryl. The rules of offer stipulate: - - the offer must be communicated to the offeree - the offeree must have knowlede of the offer for it to be valid and enforceable - Claude vs Marty - -On June 5, Marty responded to the advertisement from Claude. While pretending to be Mr. Markland, “he gave Claude a cheque for $2.6m and drove away the car.” The cheque was dishonoured; Claude also discovered that Marty was not Mr. Markland. Claude had not asked for identification. Marty sold the car to Sheryl and “absconded with the money”. - -Rules/Principles applied - -This was not a contract. It was an Invitation to Treat. - - Claude vs Jen - -Jen received the letter on June 1. He immediately phoned Claude, but got his answering machine. Jen left a message “stating that he would pay $2.5 for the vehicle”. Jen then waited for a response from Claude, but, “not wanting to lose the car, left another message saying he would pay $3m. Claude retrieved both messages on June 3.” - - Claude vs Sonia - -On June 1, Claude received a letter stating her interest in buying the car, that “she wanted an expert to give his opinion on the vehicle,” and with a cheque for $1m, showing her commitment in buying the car. In the letter, she also requested that Claude not show the car to anyone until June 8. On receiving the cheque, Claude immediately lodged it in his bank account. - - Claude vs Harris - -Harris saw Claude’s letter on June 7. Claude called Harris 5 minutes later and personally withdrew his offer to sell him the car. “Harris still proceeded to post his letter of acceptance on June 8 to Claude.” - - Claude vs Mardi Gras Hotel - -Claude checked in and registered at the Mardi Gras Hotel. He went to his room where he saw a very large notice over the bed, stating “The hotel is not liable for any losses and/or damage suffered by any guests while on the property.” - -“He left his gold watch and bracelet in the room and went to dinner. He gave the key to the receptionist for safekeeping”. Upon his return to his room, “he discovered that the jewellery and other important documents were missing.” The hotel denies liability for the loss of his items. - - -Advice - + +%Subject: Business Law Coursework 2 +%Student Info: Carey Riley, ID# MO/10/7220/MS +%!encoding: uft-8 +=Issues= + +==Issue 1== + +Claude was selling his 2011 Honda CRV for $3m. The offer was open from June 1 to +June 8, to 3 parties: Sonia, Jen and Harris. + +Between June 5 and 6, the car was sold to a new party who was not a part of the +original contract. + +The offer to one of the offerees was withdrawn on June 7 by phone call. + +==Issue 2== + +Mardi Gras hotel offers rooming. However, another term of agreement is added after +registering, by way of a notice over the bed in the room. + +==================== + +=Glossary of Principles and Rules= + +: Acceptance: +Any communicated, unconditional act that makes the offerer aware of the offerees +intention of taking an offer. + +: Agreement: +A valid offer followed by a valid acceptance. + +: Breach of a condition: +failure to perform an obligation according to an established condition in contract. + +: Condition: +a term of a contract that played an important part in the formation of the contract and +which, when unfulfilled may result in the ending of the contract (repudiation) or the +fullest range of remedies. + +: Consideration: +"some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, +detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other" during +formation of the contract. + +: Contract: +an agreement where a valid offer is followed by a valid acceptance. + +: Counter-offer: +a term or offer made by the offeree which gives the offerer a choice in accepting or +refusing (hence cancelling formation of the contract). + +: Exclusion clause: +a term in a contract that seeks to limit or exclude liability of the contract breach. + +: Fraudulent misrepresentation: +when a party knowingly falsifies a representation made at or before the time of the contract. + +: Frustration: +an event beyond the control of either party that prevents the performance of a contract. + +: Invitation to Treat: +an invitation to other parties to make an offer, usually to buy. The contract is formed by +the agreement to sell, which is taken as acceptance. + +: Mere representations: +a factual representation by one party intended to induce the other party enter the contract, +but said representation is not meant to form part of the contract, and hence has no further +contractual significance. + +: Offer: +communicated, specific terms set to be accepter by other party and ends on acceptance, proper +withrawal, lapse of time, or/and death of one of the parties. + +: Postal rule: +acceptance of an offer by way of posting a letter of acceptance. The offer is agreed to on post +-- not receipt -- of the letter. + +: Pre-contractual statement: +any statement made at or during formation of a contract. + +: Representation: +Statements made before or athe time of contracting. + +: Self-induced frustration: +frustration occuring within the control of one party. + +: Speculative damages: +awarding damages according to a recreation of what would have been but for the breach of contract. + +: Voidable contract: +a contract with factors present at formation -- possibly unknown to one or either party -- that lack +the essential characteristics of voluntary agreement, is based on misinformation or runs contrary of +the law. + + +==================== + +=Cases= + +==Claude vs Sheryl== + +Sheryl bought the car from Marty. There was no evidence of prior knowledge of Claude’s offer or of her +knowing Claude. + +===Rules/Principles applied=== + +Claude did not communicate the offer to Sheryl. The rules of offer state: + + - the offer must be communicated to the offeree + - the offeree must have knowlede of the offer for it to be valid and enforceable + + +==Claude vs Marty== + +On June 5, Marty responded to the advertisement from Claude. While pretending to be Mr. Markland, “he +gave Claude a cheque for $2.6m and drove away the car.” The cheque was dishonoured; Claude also +discovered that Marty was not Mr. Markland. Claude had not asked for identification. Marty sold the +car to Sheryl and “absconded with the money”. + +===Rules/Principles applied=== + +This was not a contract. It was an Invitation to Treat. Hence, making Marty the offerer and Claude +the offeree. + +Marty is guilty of 2 instances of fraudulent misrepresentation: + + pretending to be Mr. Markland + + ending the contract with a fake cheque. + +Even though this has happened, the discovery of the fact after the offer had passed on to another +party in a separate contract leaves no option but to sue Marty for damages, or to get the car back +plus suing for damages. + + +==Claude vs Jen== + +Jen received the letter on June 1. He immediately phoned Claude, but got his answering machine. +Jen left a message “stating that he would pay $2.5 for the vehicle”. Jen then waited for a response +from Claude, but, “not wanting to lose the car, left another message saying he would pay $3m. +Claude retrieved both messages on June 3.” + +===Rules/Principles applied=== +Jen cancelled entering a contract when he made a counter-offer of $2.5. + +==Claude vs Sonia== + +On June 1, Claude received a letter stating her interest in buying the car, that “she wanted an +expert to give his opinion on the vehicle,” and with a cheque for $1m, showing her commitment in +buying the car. In the letter, she also requested that Claude not show the car to anyone until +June 8. On receiving the cheque, Claude immediately lodged it in his bank account. + +===Rules/Principles applied=== + + Sonia used postal acceptance. + + Sonia used the rule of consideration by paying $1m as a commitment. + + Sonia entered the contract with the conditions that the car not be shown to anyone (no +Invitation to Treat) until June 8 and that she would bring a third party to give his expert opinion +on the car. Claude agreed to both when he deposited the checque. + + +==Claude vs Harris== + +Harris saw Claude’s letter on June 7. Claude called Harris 5 minutes later and personally withdrew +his offer to sell him the car. “Harris still proceeded to post his letter of acceptance on June 8 +to Claude.” + +===Rules/Principles applied=== +Claude personally ended the contract with Harris by withdrawing the offer. The letter was not posted +as yet. Therefore, the contract does not extend to Harris. + +==Claude vs Mardi Gras Hotel== + +Claude checked in and registered at the Mardi Gras Hotel. He went to his room where he saw a very +large notice over the bed, stating “The hotel is not liable for any losses and/or damage suffered by +any guests while on the property.” + +“He left his gold watch and bracelet in the room and went to dinner. He gave the key to the receptionist +for safekeeping”. Upon his return to his room, “he discovered that the jewellery and other important +documents were missing.” The hotel denies liability for the loss of his items. + +===Rules/Principles applied=== +Mardi Gras Hotel had a representation (an exclusion clause) that had no bearing on the contract, since +the contract agreed to at check in made no mention of the liability clause. There was not enough notice +of the clause. The clause also was not clearly addressed to any party. + +==================== + +=Advice= + +With regards to Sonia: the contract is voidable by Sonia. Sonia can also sue for damages. Claude breached +the conditions set forth by Sonia in order for her to accept the contract: he advertised the car and +frustrated the terms by losing the vehicle. + +The car is now legally Sheryl's. His only remediation would come from Marty. Otherwise, he has no right +to the car. + +Harris and Jen are out of the contract. Jen due to his counter-offer and Harris due to a withdrawal of +the offer. + +With regards to Mardi Gras Hotel he may sue for Remedy of Speculative Damages. He may be able to use this +case to his advantage in clearing the case with Sonia. -- 2.11.4.GIT