I.

True/False (explain)

1) The Canteen of FTU is legal person (1đ)

- Answer: True or False?

- Explain: => Legal BASIS? Article 74 => 83 => Explain: Áp dụng trong trường
hợp này như thế nào?
False

- Does not have independent property

- Cannot participate in legal activities

2) Mortgage of property is the security method which only applied for movable

asset

False => Article 317 -> 327 (Chỉ trích từ 1-3 điều)

Explain: ………………. For both immovable assets & in certain cases, for movable assets.

3) Exchange wedding rings is not the legal event which rising the legal marriage

relation between the bride and groom

True => Đúng, vì sự kiện pháp lý làm phát sinh quan hệ hôn nhân là đăng ký kết hôn tại

UBND cấp XÃ/Phường. (Vợ chồng quốc tịch Việt Nam => Không có yếu tố nước ngoài)

Legal basis: Luật Hôn nhân Gia đình & Luật Hộ tịch => Family and Marriage Law, Law

on Civil Status

4) Civil legal capacity (nang luc phap luat dan su) and civil conduct capacity (nang luc

hanh vi dan su) of legal entities appears in the same time

False => Legal basis:

Civil Legal capacity: Article 16 - 18

Civil conduct capacity: Article 19 - 24

The Civil Codes 2015

Explain: The civil legal capacity of an individual shall exist from the time he/she is born

and terminate when he/she dies. Whereas Civil conduct capacity only appears and

ceases at a certain age or by court’s order.

5) International private law establishes the processes for setting disputes between

STATES.

- Answer: False

- Explain: International private law establishes the processes for settling disputes

THAT POSSESS FOREIGN ELEMENTS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS AND LEGAL PERSONS.

6) The warehouse is the asset which not be used to collateral

- Answer: False, Legal basis: Article 321 (4)

- Explain: In the case of a mortgage of a warehouse, the mortgagor may replace

commodities in the warehouse, but must strictly ensure the value of the

warehouse commodities as agreed upon.

7) Limitation statutes is the period which the law imposed to bring the case to the

court

- Answer: False (Vì nó chưa đủ), Legal basis: Article 149-157 => Có những loại thời

hiệu nào ngoài thời hiệu khởi kiện?

8) April put an advertisement in the newspaper advertising the sale of her

computer for $500. Simultaneously, 6 people responded to the ad by mail with

formal written acceptances. April is bound on 6 contracts to sell her computer for

$500

- Answer: False

- Explain: INVITATION TO TREAT. An advertisement is not a formal offer (Article 386

=> Advertisement vẫn là 1 offer)

=> No LEGALLY BINDING contract

9) Acceptance can be effective regardless of a person's knowledge of the offer as

long as they have done the acts specified in the offer

False, Article 393

Acceptance can not be effective regardless of a person's knowledge of the offer as long

as they have done the acts specified in the offer. A person must be aware of an offer

and be responding to it.

10) International law governs the activities of governments in relation to other

governments.

- Answer: False (Sai vì chưa đủ, không chỉ điều chỉnh quan hệ giữa các quốc gia với

nhau)

- Explain: Because international law is the body of rules that regulates activities

between nations. Public international law: between governments. Private

international law: between people

II. Case

1) Carlos agrees to transport a valuable painting from Darwin to Melbourne for

Danesh, for a fee of $500. The painting is required urgently, for an upcoming

exhibition.
The day before the painting to be transported, the only airline flying from Darwin

has a problem with its jets, and all flights will be grounded for a week. This is the 1st

time such a serious problem has ever happened with this airline. The only

alternative for Carlos is to pay for a private chartered flight for the painting, or

transport it by road. Both of these options will cost more than $1000.

Danesh claims that the extra costs are Carlos's problem, and that he will sue Carlos

for breach of contract if the painting is not delivered on time. Carlos says that the

contract is now frustrated, and a new contract must be negotiated. Who is right?

Issue: Contract is not conducted due to the problem of the airline.

Related law: art 156, 420, 416.1

Application: The contract is frustrated because the parties, which are Carlos, the airline

and Danesh could not foresee the problem with airline’s jets.
Conclusion: Carlos hasn’t breached the contract → Carlos is right and Danesh is not entitled to
bring a lawsuit against Carlos in pursuant to Article 156 (1).

2) Vangel Fashions sent out a flier featuring their new spring fashions. Cindy fell in

love with the cute dress featured on the front of the flier. When Cindy called to

order the dress, she was informed that the company had sold out of the dress.

Cindy was upset and claimed that the store was in breach of contract. She argued

that the flier presented an offer, which she accepted when she called to order the

dress. Is Cindy correct? Why or why not?

ISSUE: Cindy claims that the shop is in breach of contract

RULE: Definition of invitation to treat

APPLICATION: advertisements, price lists are not offered. As long as the store is not

violating any consumer protection statutes, it has no liability here. Contract of sale is
valid when two parties reach an agreement and all essentials of a valid contract

have been met, CIndyLiz calling the store that is when she and the store were trying

to reach an agreement, which didn't happen

CONCLUSION: Cindy is not correct

Đề 1:

Part 1: TF

1. International law governs the activities of governments in relation to other

governments

2. VJCC is a legal person

3. The fact that a boy picked up a mobile phone while he had walked, legal event is

“transform”

True

4. The car is the asset which not be used to collateral

5. Exchange wedding rings is not the legal event which ring the legal marriage

relation between the bride and groom

6. Civil legal capacity & civil conduct capacity of legal entities appears in the same

time

7. International private law establishes the processes for settling disputes between

states

8. Limitation statues is the period which the court imposed to bring the case to the

court

9. Blue refuses to sell goods for Red, so Red sends Pink to buy goods from Blue and

turn to Red. It's a valid contract

 - Offer

- Consideration

- Acceptance: Có sự chấp thuận không? => Chưa có sự chấp thuận nên chưa thể

coi là một hợp đồng có hiệu lực

- Competence: Mặc định là có

=> False

Pink has not agreed yet and it was simply Red’s suggestion.

A valid contract is an agreement which is binding & forceable.

10. Custom (Tập quán pháp) will be prevailed (Coi như không có hiệu lực) if it

conflicts with circular/Decree (Thông tư/Nghị định)

- Answer: Falsea 55

- Explain:

Part 2: Case

1. Minh Anh runs a business supplying furniture for special events. She has a

contract to provide 100 chairs for Bob’s 60th birthday garden party, for VND

500,000. On the morning of the party, Bob and his helpers are setting up for

the day’s celebrations. Minh Anh arrives, but she has only brought 93 chairs.

She first speaks to Bob’s nephew, Luu Huynh. When he hears that only 93

chairs have arrived, Luu Huynh quickly gets into his car to go find another

furniture hire business. He finds one that will provide 7 similar chairs, for a

cost of VND 63,000. When Minh Anh sees Bob inside, and tells him she has

only brought 93 chairs, Bob is angry. Minh Anh claims that Bob must pay her

the full VND 500,000 but Bob disagrees. Is Minh Anh entitled to any payment

(and if so, how much)?

 - Issue: Không thực hiện nghĩa vụ/thực hiện không đầy đù nghĩa vụ

- Rules: Article 351 (1), 356 The Civil Codes 2015 and Article 297 (2) Vietnam

Trade Law 2005

- Application: Tính tỉ giá, Bob trả Minh Anh số tiền tương ứng với phần nghĩa vụ

Minh Anh đã thực hiện => 93% x 500.000 = 465.000VNĐ

- Conclusion: Minh Anh is entitled to payment equivalent to the fulfilled

obligation, which is providing 93 out of 100 chairs for Bob’s garden party.

3. Joan is setting up a small business mowing lawns and maintaining domestic

gardens. Her business is called ‘Prune & Bloom’. Joan needs a sturdy lawn mower

that will withstand frequent use, so she goes to her local Nailed It Hardware store.

Joan is assisted by Effah. Joan explains her needs, and Effah shows her the

MowMaster 3000, a new brand of lawn mower. “The MowMaster 3000 is the one for

you. It’s amazing! The blades can cut through anything, and they’ll never get blunt

or bent out of shape. I think you’ll get through your jobs in no time with this one,

and be able to fit more clients into the week. It was designed in Germany and made

from the best quality parts.” Joan checks out the MowMaster 3000, and is convinced

by Effah’s comments. She decides to purchase one. Are any of Effah’s statements

about the MowMaster 3000 part of the sale contract? After only 3 days of using her

new MowMaster 3000, Joan notices that it is not cutting as well. When she inspects

the blades she finds that they are already worn down and blunted. When she calls

the Nailed It Hardware store to complain, she is told, “We’re not responsible for any

problems like that. Didn’t you see the sign at the counter?” At the sales counter

where Joan had paid for her MowMaster 3000, there was a small sign: Nailed It

Hardware is not liable for any breach of warranty or condition in any sale of its
products. When Joan was at the counter, the sign had been partially hidden by a

group of pot plants being held aside for another customer to collect. Does the sign

apply to Joan’s sale contract with Nailed It Hardware?

- Issue: Joan didn’t see the sign at the counter

- Related law: acceptance can not be effective if the offeree are not aware of it

and do not respond to it.

- Application: Joan didn’t see the sign since the sign had been partially hidden

by a group of pot plants. Therefore, nailed it hardware store mustn’t use this

sign in the sale contract with Joan.

- Conclusion: the sign is not applied in the contract.

4. Barnet was orally hired by Paula to locate desirable real estate that she could use

for rental property. She stated she wanted to find a four-unit building that could be

purchased for under $200,000 that could be rented for at least $1,000 per month

per unit ($4,000 rental per month for the whole property). Barnet located a four-

unit building that could be purchased for $160,000 and was renting for $1,200 per

unit. It was such a good deal that he purchased it for himself. About two months

later he found a second property that was listed for $199,000 and rented for $1,000

per unit. Paula purchased the property. Afterwards, she learned that Barnet had

bought the $160,000 four-unit property for himself without telling her about it.

Paula believes that Barnet has acted improperly. Barnet claims that he did what she

asked—he found a property for under $200,000 that rented for $1,000 per unit. He

also claims that since their agreement was oral, he has a legal defense if she

pursues the matter in court. Does Paula have any legal recourse against Barnet?

Explain.
Barnet có nghĩa vụ phải thông báo cho khách hàng của mình (Paula) bất cứ khi nào

tìm thấy tài sản phù hợp với yêu cầu của Paula :v (4-unit building that costs less

than 200.000 USD and each unit can be rented for 1000 USD per month) => Legal

basis tìm ở: 409 và 410. (Có gây thiệt hại gì cho Paula không, so sánh benefit của

mỗi asset) ⇔ KHÔNG CÓ ĐÚNG SAI, TẤT CẢ NẰM Ở LẬP LUẬN.

Vấn đề duy nhất: Trong hợp đồng miệng không có thỏa thuận là bắt buộc phải

thông báo.

- Issue: offer & acceptance | contract violation

- Related law: Act 385,409, 410

- Application: there’s no valid contract between 2 parties, but this is only oral

agreement. Besides, follow obligation between 2 of them and Paula reaches

her wants

- Conclusion: Paula has no legal recourse against Barnet

4. My Dung

- Issue: contract frustration

- Related law: 420.1b, 416.1

- Application: the airline is the third party who breached the contract.

However, My Dung and the airline couldn’t foresee the problem with the

airline’s jet.

- Conclusion: My Dung has not breached the contract so My Dung is right.