Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 135 views

    Bus. Law Tutorial Answer

    Uploaded by

    树荫世界
    The document contains summaries of 3 legal cases regarding contract law: 1) Seri v. Amu - An agreement for Amu to sew clothes for Seri was void because payment was contingent on Seri's subjective taste, leaving the agreement too vague. 2) Juna v. Odie - Juna's initial offer to lease a shop to Odie was not an acceptance forming a contract, as Juna retained the ability to change her mind. 3) Reese v. Anne - Anne's statement the next day that she agreed to Reese's prior offer was not a valid acceptance, as the offer lapsed with the passage of time.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bus. Law Tutorial Answer

    Uploaded by

    树荫世界
    135 views3 pages
    The document contains summaries of 3 legal cases regarding contract law: 1) Seri v. Amu - An agreement for Amu to sew clothes for Seri was void because payment was contingent on Seri's subjective taste, leaving the agreement too vague. 2) Juna v. Odie - Juna's initial offer to lease a shop to Odie was not an acceptance forming a contract, as Juna retained the ability to change her mind. 3) Reese v. Anne - Anne's statement the next day that she agreed to Reese's prior offer was not a valid acceptance, as the offer lapsed with the passage of time.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document contains summaries of 3 legal cases regarding contract law: 1) Seri v. Amu - An agreement for Amu to sew clothes for Seri was void because payment was contingent on Seri's subjective taste, leaving the agreement too vague. 2) Juna v. Odie - Juna's initial offer to lease a shop to Odie was not an acceptance forming a contract, as Juna retained the ability to change her mind. 3) Reese v. Anne - Anne's statement the next day that she agreed to Reese's prior offer was not a valid acceptance, as the offer lapsed with the passage of time.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    135 views3 pages

    Bus. Law Tutorial Answer

    Uploaded by

    树荫世界
    The document contains summaries of 3 legal cases regarding contract law: 1) Seri v. Amu - An agreement for Amu to sew clothes for Seri was void because payment was contingent on Seri's subjective taste, leaving the agreement too vague. 2) Juna v. Odie - Juna's initial offer to lease a shop to Odie was not an acceptance forming a contract, as Juna retained the ability to change her mind. 3) Reese v. Anne - Anne's statement the next day that she agreed to Reese's prior offer was not a valid acceptance, as the offer lapsed with the passage of time.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Bus.

    Law Tutorial - Problem Solving Answer

    QUESTION 1 (Seri v. Amu)

    The issue: Seri refused to pay wages to Amu because according to her, the
    clothes that Amu sewed did not suit her taste. Is their agreement void and can
    Amu claim the wage.

    The decision of court: For this case, the contract made by Seri and Amu will
    be void. Amu will also never get any wage from Seri. This is because of the
    agreement made by Seri is after receive the clothes with suit the taste then
    Seri will pay the wages to Amu. Since the clothe now is not suit Seri taste,
    therefore, there will be no any wage for Amu.

    The fact: The words “taste” bring too common and do not much specific by all
    individual.

    The legal support: Ahmad Meah v. Nacodah Marecan (1890) Ky 583


    Facts: NM said to AM: "Please build a house that suits me". AM then built a
    house that he thought was suitable for NM. Upon completion, AM requested
    payment of wages, but NM refused to pay because the house AM built did not
    suit him.

    Held: The agreement entered into between AM & NM cannot be enforced due
    to the presence of the word "suitable" which has no clear meaning. Thus, the
    NM proposal is not communicated to AM & AM cannot make a wage claim.

    “Suitable” – the term is subjective; it differs from one person to another.


    QUESTION 2 (Juna v. Odie)

    The issue: After Odie agreed to the offer and the terms and conditions given,
    Juna suddenly changed her mind and offered Cora to rent the same shop
    building. Can their contract be terminated because Juna suddenly changed
    her mind.

    The fact: Juna “intends to lease” the shop, therefore, just offer TNC but not
    confirmation between two parties.

    The decision of court: The contract between Juna and Odie can be terminated
    anytime because there wasn't have any contract have been acceptance.

    The legal support: Lau Brothers & Co. v. China Pacific Navigation Co. Ltd.
    (1965) 1 MLJ 1
    Facts: Negotiations for the delivery of logs were conducted through a series of
    telegrams and letters. Whilst still in the negotiating stage, the defendant
    withdrew. Issue: Was there any binding contract between the two parties?

    The court held: that the parties were still in a state of negotiation and no
    agreement was formed. Therefore the Defendant were justified in
    withdrawing.
    QUESTION 3 (Reese v. Anne)

    The issue: Are Reese and Anne bound by the contract.

    The fact: The next day, Anne met with Reese and stated, “I agreed to sell it to
    you at the price as offered yesterday.” The words yesterday already out from
    the timeline given by the offeror to offeree.

    The decision of court: Reese may choose to accept the offer by Anne or not to
    do so, because there was no contract created as the price Reese made is out
    out the time the offer given.

    The legal support: Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co. Ltd. v. Montefiore (1866)
    LR1 Exch 109

    The fact: Montefiore applied for shares on 8 June but he was not told until 23
    November that his offer had been accepted & that the share had been alloted
    to him & that the balance owing on the shares was now due. Montefiore
    refused to pay & the company threatened to sue; allerging breach of contract.

    The issue: was whether the offer lapsed through passage of time.

    The court held: the offer to purchase shares had not been accepted within a
    reasonable time & the offer had therefore lapsed. There was no contract
    created.

    You might also like