Law Paper

27 Aug. 13 (commercial law)

QUESTION 1:

On Tuesday the 15th of January 2013, Paul offers to sell his collection of antique furniture to his close friend Yue for $6000 by telephone. This was considerably less than the $8000 that Paul had advertised his collection for in the local newspaper. Yue asked for a little time to think it over and was told by Paul: “Sure, I will leave the offer open until Friday the 18th January”.

On Wednesday the 16th of January, Yue posted a letter to Paul agreeing to by the furniture at the specified price subject to Paul’s assurance that the furniture was not damaged.

Later that same Wednesday, Paul was approached by Shin Jun who offered to purchase all furniture for $8000 as advertised in the newspaper. Paul immediately accepted and then sent Yue a letter telling him that he had decided not to sell the furniture.

Paul received Shin Jun’s ‘agreement’ letter on Thursday the 17th of January and Yue received Paul’s withdrawal letter on Friday the 18th of January.

Advise Paul of his liability, if any, to Yue and/or Shin Jun.

PAUL V YUE

15 JAN..... NEWSPAPER AD..... INVITATION..... PARTRIDGE V CRITTENDEN

15 JAN.... PAUL OFFERS TO YUE FOR $6000.... PROMISSORY INTENT... SUBJECT MATTER PRICE, DEADLINE FOR ACCEPTANCE... CLEAR...CARLILL V CARBOLIC....OPEN UNTIL 18 JAN.... OFFER LAPSES HERE... RAMSGATE VH V MONTEFIORE

RELATIONSHIP..... CLOSE FRIENDS..... DOES AGREEMENT, IF ANY, LACK INTENTION...BALFOUR V BALFOUR.... COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT... INTENTION PRESENT.... EDWARDS V SKYWAY.....

16 JAN... YUE POSTS A “LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE”... NOT AN ACCEPTANCE... CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE...MASTERS V CAMERON... NO ACCEPTANCE IF ASSURANCE IS NOT FORTHCOMING... ON FACTS... NONE....

DOES THE POSTAL RULE APPLY.... NO IT DOES NOT..... APPLIES TO A PROPER ACCEPTANCE.... ADAMS V LINDSELL.....OFFER USED PHONE... INSTANTANEOUS COMMUNICATION... POST NOT CONTEMPLATED....

NO AGREEEMENT BETWEEN BOTH

WITHDRAWAL LETTER RECEIVED ON 18 JAN.... EFFECTIVE?.......