QUESTION 1

Advise Thomas in the following scenario.

Thomas told his friend Monique on 28 September over the phone:

‘I decided to sell my car for $5,000. It’s in great condition and I need the money by the
middle of October because I want to buy a new car. If you want to buy it for $5,000, let me
know by 3 October’.

Thomas has now (the date of today) decided not to buy a new car anymore, and he no longer wants
to sell his existing car. He knows that Monique is most likely going to accept his offer as she has
asked her dad to lend her the money.

Thomas lives Hanoi, and Monique is currently living and working in Hai Phong. Her mobile phone
is currently broken so she is only contactable via social media platforms and email but will be
meeting with Thomas’s brother John who lives in Hai Phong in the next few days. Thomas speaks
to John on the phone every day.

Can Thomas withdraw the offer and how should he go about it if he can?

LEGAL REASONING:

Big ISSUE: can Thomas withdraw the offer?

Issue 1: whether there was a valid offer?

Parties, subject matter, price, performance time

payment term – chua co

delivery term – chua co

 No offer

Issue 2: conditions for a revocation?

However, assuming there is an offer, …

- Issue 3: contract formation (5 elements)

 Offer => assuming yes
  Consideration (price): $5,000
 Certainty: by 15 October new car
 Intention: ask dad to lend money
 Acceptance => no
Law: Silence is not considered an acceptance (which act…)
Time limit: With time limit for reply: a reply accepting shall only be effective if it
is made within that time limit. If offeror receives acceptance after the time limit has
expired => new offer
 No need to revoke because the contract is terminated

3 CONCLUSIONS

ANSWER:

 The main issue for this question is whether Thomas can withdraw the offer as mentioned.
In order to answer this question, we need to consider a number of smaller issues
1. The first issue is whether there was an offer [that Thomas sent to Monique on…]
For this issue, to establish an offer, the law is that an offer must satisfy 6 elements which
are:
- Parties: here, the parties are Thomas and Monique
- Subject matter: here [new car]
- Payment terms: there were no payment terms as provided in the facts
- Delivery terms: again, no terms provided in the facts
- Performance time: 3 October

It follows from the application of the relevant to the facts as mentioned above that there was no
valid offer

However, here, assuming that there was a valid offer. The next question that we need to answer is
whether Thomas can revoke that offer

To answer this question, we need to consider elements for the formation of a contract. There are
elements
Offer: as mentioned above, while my conclusion is there was no offer. I assume here that there
was a valid one.

Consideration: 5000

Intention: here, from the facts, we understand that (*)

Certainty: (*)

Acceptance: here, on the facts, there were no communication between Thomas and Monique on
the acceptance of the office. It means that Monique kept silence about that offer. Regarding this
issues, Article [*] of the Civil Code provides that [*]. Therefore, there was no acceptance by
Monique

Furthermore, the offer from Thomas provides that Monique would need to answer by 3 Oct. Here,
as of today, 4 Oct, the time-limit has passed without any acceptance not communication from
Monique. On this issue, Article… says that…. Hence, the offer expired on…..

It follows from the above law to the above facts that there was no contract.

In conclusion:

- There was no offer

- There was no acceptance
- There was contract
- Thomas does not need to revoke the offer

QUESTION 2

Michael is an avid player of board games and is founder and president of the League of Serious
Gamers (LSG) social club. Every year, Eugene travels to the Vietnam Convention of Board Game
Players where he mixes with fellow enthusiasts, sees the many displays and experiences different
board games.

He usually returns with new or collector board games that he has purchased and which he on-sells
at cost price to members of the LSG. This year he bought a chess set which, he was told by the
German seller, was once owned by Emperor Quang Trung. Michael placed the following entry in
the newsletter that was regularly sent to LSG members:
 Gamers, a special find this time! Emperor Franz Joseph’s chess board and pieces. $10,000
for this piece of history.

Peter is a wealthy collector of rare historical pieces. He was in the bedroom of his son Mark, who
was a member of the LSG, telling him that he needed to go out and get a job. After delivering his
lecture, he noticed the LSG newsletter, which was open at the advertisements section, and saw the
entry about the chess set.

Peter knew that the Quang Trung chess set was a much sought-after historical piece. However, he
thought that the chess set was in the collection of an American buyer, and in any event would be
worth much more than $10,000. Accordingly, Peter wrote down the phone number in the
advertisement, arranged to meet Michael, inspected the chess set and paid him the money.

Peter arranged a conference to which he invited other well-known collectors of historical pieces.
However, his moment of triumph was destroyed when a friend of him loudly proclaimed to Peter
and the assembled audience:

‘Oh, my dear boy! That’s not the Quang Trung chess set. I own the Quang Trung chess set
and have the authentication documents to prove it! Where did you get this — some
backstreet bazaar?’

The conference ended in a humiliating farce for Peter. Sitting alone after everybody had left, he
suddenly suffered a fit of pique, picked up the chess set and flung it against the wall. As a result
the board was cracked and several pieces were badly chipped. Peter now wants to direct his ire
against the person he blames for his humiliation — Michael — based on the representations he
made about the chess set.

Advise Peter.

ANSWER:

Breach
Terms

Contract -> executed -> offer/acceptance

6 Vitiating factors -> duress -> voluntary (no)

-> misrepresentation

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

=> ISSUES:

1. Misrepresentation

2. Damages  calculation of damages

LAW:

1. Misrepresentation
- Lying, incorrect
- Representation/Statement
- Misrepresentation
- Inducement: reliance
- Action: purchasing
 There is a misrepresentation
2. Damages
- Calculation of damages:
Expectation of peter: if the good is genuine, he expects to buy > $10

QUESTION 3:

Pierre (owner) and Blake (builder) have been negotiating a fixed price multimillion-dollar
construction contract for many months. Negotiations started slowly, and they often used the post
to negotiate the contract, exchanging their views in letters. This suited them both, because there
was no urgency as the construction project still needed council approval. When council approval
was granted to proceed with the project, the dynamic of the negotiations had however changed,
there were more disagreements, and Pierre and Blake negotiated exclusively face-to-face. Despite
strained relations, the parties got quite close to an agreement, and Pierre made a final offer of the
fixed contract price to Blake of $9.2 million. Blake asked for time to think. Blake now wants to
accept the offer. Advise Blake if sending the acceptance by post would result in a contract (i.e.
whether it will be a valid acceptance).