有没有谁很厉害Business Law的？救命啊。。

shepotato

有没有谁很厉害Business Law的？
救命啊，我现在在读着，可是发现好乱哦。。一头雾水当中。。要做assignment，但是根本毫无头绪。。
有谁可以帮帮我的吗？

qw

什么题目？

shepotato

版主~题目是英文的，不要封杀我~: )

Sun Pte Ltd Company, a furniture company, was having sales and advertised on Tuesday in the newspaper, "Closing Down sale. Everything must go. All items to be sold for below $50. Special gift for purchases above $200."

1. Andrew showed up at the sale and saw a lamp for $40. Heliked it a lot but asked if the price could be lower. The salesman, Sonny, said that the lowest price would only be $30 which Andrew happily accepted. He also chose a table but it was priced at $60. However when Andrew went to pay for the items, the cashier said that the lamp cannot be sold at $30 as it was already a discounted item.

2.Bobby spent a total of $250 on various furni items and asked for the free gift that was advertised. However, Sonny told him that they had no more stock of the free gift and that the free gift promotion had been cancelled earlier that morning.

龟龟龟

大概答案是酱

1. There is an offer and acceptance, and thus, there is a contract.
2. It is a unilateral contract - Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, and thus, it is a valid contract.

很久以前读过，大概是酱。你自己醒目醒目，follow answering process，然后 derive 个 conclusion 来。

shepotato

回复 4# 龟龟龟

但是我觉得阿，2个都是invitation to treat 也。。我不太清楚。。而且，第1题，有两个问题，一是可不可以用30块买。 一个是价钱没照着广告。。

龟龟龟

回复 5# shepotato


   
对
看漏眼
有两个问题
第二个问题好像是 voidable 的

angelol

一年没碰BUSINESS LAW了

第一个应该是ITT,然后要解释offer, counter offer 和 acceptance. Acceptance 过后售价应该就是RM30了valid contract.但是那个RM 60 的lamp应该是ITT,他可以不选择买，但是要买就要accept 那个offer 的价钱。这里有几个cases的，但是课本不在找不到给你。

第二那个就可以用Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co。

Business Law 还有ASSIGNMENT的哦？　=.=

钻石与水

第一个问题是ITT, mere statement of price, lowest price is 30, this is an invitation to welcome you to come and make offer. Then after that the cashier reject this offer. see at Harvey v Facey.
Second question, is term and condition. But it doesn't state any t&c like first come first serve, so we can apply another theory. Acceptance via performance, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball.
希望可以帮到你

shepotato

回复 7# angelol

对啊。。第2个我也想用smokeball的case。。
那第1个30块的算是offer哦。。？

shepotato

回复 8# 钻石与水

谢谢你哦！看了大家的回复，比较有头绪了，毕竟才开始没多久就要写assignment了，都还没正式上手。。
但第一题那个$30的，我还是不懂应该用什么来argue。。offer？itt？



还有2题，希望大家也能给我一些意见，

3. Charlie saw a chair he wanted to buy but as he did not have enough money, he promised to return later to pay for the chair. SOnny reserved the chair for him but Charlie never returned.

4. Dickson from Office Furniture Company saw the advertisement and called Sonny if they had any typist chairs for the sale. When Sonny said they had 15 available typist at $10 each, Dickson then said he will confirm if he buying later. Several hours later, Dickson sent an email to Sonny confirming that he would like to buy all 15 chairs. However, by the time Sonny read the email later that evening, all the chairs had been sold off.

这2题我比较有头绪，但不知道对不对。
3，我觉得是不成立为案例的吧。应为没有consideration
4， 应该也是不成立吧，因为dickson没有事前确定，但是必须argue的是，charlie是几时发送email的。而且就算在sonny卖出去之前发送email跟他们确定，那也只是offer，不是acceptance吧？因为当Dickson说confirm later的时候，他们之间就没有contract了。。。

angelol

回复  angelol

对啊。。第2个我也想用smokeball的case。。
那第1个30块的算是offer哦。。？
shepotato 发表于 7-12-2009 04:07 PM

不是COUNTER OFFER吗？

shepotato

counter offer..? 对吼，可是counter offer。。。应该不行吧？因为andrew问他能不能便宜一点，sonny没有拒绝，反而还跟他说30块，那original offer is still capable of acceptance. 我看书的。。从hyde v wrench 的案子，不能apply啊。。

我把题目argue成itt了也。。用harvey v facey 的案例。 不过你说了counter offer，我又有别的头绪了，谢谢！！！

钻石与水

应该不会是counter offer, 从头到尾都没有offerer出现，一直到你向cashier offer 30, and then the cashier reject the offer. 2 cases must be applied, Advertisement is Partridge v Crittenden, Mere statement of price is Harvey v Facey. Counter offer is original offerer become offeree and then offeree become offerer. But the problem is the advertisement is ITT, and the salesman is also not making an offer, like Harvey case. It is regarded as ITT also.

第三题还是offer and acceptance question. The agreement is formed (offer + acceptance = agreement). But it is still not contract, as lack of consideration.

第四题是revocation of offer and postal rule.
Revocation of offer: Routledge v Grant, Dickinson v Dodds
Postal rule: the acceptance via fax/email/sms is depend on the time of the person received. Entores v Miles Far East

shepotato

回复 13# 钻石与水


我也觉得不是counter offer。。

真是太感谢你了！帮了我很大的忙呢！我待会会继续，遇到问题时，也许又要麻烦你再帮我了！可以吗？  太谢谢你了！