Ministry of Education and Training

Ho Chi Minh University of Law

CLASS CLC47F
PRESENTATION
GROUP 4

Subject: Contract law

Teacher: Assoc. Prof. PhD. Ha Thi Thanh Binh
Group: 04
MEMBERS

Ordinal Student name Student code

number
1 Mai Yến Vy (Leader) 2253801012289
2 Trần Đỗ Uyên Nhi 2253801014095
3 Nguyễn Hoàng Phúc 2253801013143
4 Phạm Hà Trang 2253801014189
 Apply US laws to answer the following questions. Would your answer be
different if Vietnamese laws apply?

1. In the window of your local convenience store John and Tuan see a note offering to
pay a reward of $200 for the safe return of a lost dog. While practicing golf in the
local park, John and Tuan see a dog that matches that description and rescue it from
being attacked by another dog. The two boys return the dog to its owner Bill, but he
refuses to pay the reward of $200. Advise John and Tuan whether they are legally
entitled to be paid the reward?

Issue: Whether Bill’s promise to pay a reward of $200 for the safe return of a lost dog
is an offer.

Under US LAW

Rule:

- The manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify

another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will
conclude it. (Article 24 Restatement (Second) of Contracts).

- Revocation of General Offer Where an offer is made by advertisement in a

newspaper or other general notification to the public or to a number of persons
whose identity is unknown to the offeror, the offeree's power of acceptance is
terminated when a notice of termination is given publicity by advertisement or
other general notification equal to that given to the offer and no better means of
notification is reasonably available. (Article 46 Restatement (Second) of
Contracts).

Application:

- The advertisement is a valid offer. Advertisement can either be considered as an

invitation to treat or an actual offer. In this case, for the advertisement to be
considered as an offer, it must satisfy requirements of an offer:

1) the offeror must objectively intend to be bound by the offer;

2) the term of the offer must be definite or reasonably certain;

3) the offer must be communicated with the offeree.

(1) As can be seen, Bill wanted to find the dog and he made an offer of $ 200
(2 ) We can assume the term of this offer will end when the dog is found

(3) Bill's offer was announced through a note so that others could see it.

- Applying the objective theory of contracts, it is evident that John and Tuan see a
note offering to pay a reward of $200 for the safe return of a lost dog.. A reasonable
person, upon seeing the advertisement's specific conditions for receiving the monetary
reward, would assume that was serious about its offer. The advertisement's explicit
claims and the specified amount of money further support this conclusion.-
Comprehensively fulfilling all the essential criteria for an effective offer, the
advertisement stands as a valid offer.

- There was a unilateral contract between John, Tuan and Bill. A unilateral contract is
one where acceptance from the offeror can only be manifested through performance of
a task by the offeree. A unilateral contract is considered existing only upon the
offeree's completion of the requested action. Here, the offeree is John and Tuan and
they have accepted the task on Bill’s note and have also done it by turning the dog to
its owner Bill.

Conclusion:

Based on the principles outlined in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, John and
Tuan have legally accepted the offer by performing the requested act of rescuing and
returning the lost dog. Therefore, they are entitled to claim the $200 reward as stated
in the notice displayed in the window of the local convenience store.

Under Vietnamese law.

Rule:
Article 570 of the Civil Code 2015 - Promises of rewards
1. A person having made a public promise of a reward must pay that reward to a
person having performed the act requested by the promissor.
2. An act for which a reward is promised must be specific and capable of being
performed and must not be prohibited by law nor contravene social morals.

Article 572 of the Civil Code 2015 - Payment of rewards

3. Where more than one person complete, at the same time, an act for which a reward
is promised, the reward shall be distributed in equal shares amongst such persons.
Application:

According to Article 570 of the 2015 Civil Code, John and Tuan could have been
rewarded because there was a public reward through a paper in the convenience store
promising a reward to whoever found the lost dog. They then found the lost dog and
brought it back to the owner, but it seems to have been injured. Bringing the dog back
does must not be prohibited by law nor contravene social morals, and is done within
their ability. However, the promise of reward requires the dog to be returned in a safe
condition so it is possible that the finder may not be rewarded in full or not at all,
Because Luat Viet has no sanctions for not paying rewards.
According to Article 572 of the 2015 Civil Code, John and Tuan receive a reward,
which will be divided between them both because their contributions in finding the
dog are equal.

Conclusion:

John and Tuan may receive a bonus, depending on whether they contact Bill again to
discuss the bonus issue. If they receive the bonus, they will divide it equally.

DIFFERENCE

1. Application under US Law:

● The advertisement serves as a valid offer, clearly outlining the terms of the
reward for finding the lost dog.
● This scenario establishes a unilateral contract, wherein acceptance is achieved
through the performance of the specified task (finding the lost dog).
● The offeror (the party posting the advertisement) promises a reward, and
acceptance is manifested by the offeree's performance (finding the dog),
creating a legally binding contract.

2. Application under Vietnamese Law:

● Based on Article 570 of the 2015 Civil Code, John and Tuan could potentially
claim the reward advertised in the convenience store for finding the lost dog.
● However, under Vietnamese law, there's no specific concept of a unilateral
contract in this scenario. Instead, the promise of reward creates an obligation
for the party offering the reward.
● The conditions for receiving the reward include returning the dog safely and
within the finder's ability, without violating any laws or social norms.
 CONCLUSION: Although there is no difference in the solution, US law stipulates
more clearly.

2. Dave is a car dealer in Essendon who offers to sell a new car (A Daihatsu Sirion) to
Bill for $16,500 on Sunday 30 December 2009, stating that the offer will remain open
for five days. Three days later, on Wednesday 2 January 2009, Bill rings Dave and
says ‘My friend wants to buy a Sirion as well. If we buy two Sirions will you sell
them to us for $32,000?’ Dave replies that he cannot sell Sirions under the list price of
$16,500 and that he cannot therefore sell them two Sirions for $16,000 each. The next
day, 3rd January 2009, Bill arrives at Dave’s showroom with a bank cheque for
$16,500 and wants to take delivery of his new car. Dave tells Bill that unfortunately
due to a devaluation of the US Dollar, the price of the car (which is fully imported) is
now $18,500.

Advise Bill whether he can insist on delivery of a new Sirion for $16,500.

Issue:whether DAVE’S OFFER STILL VALID under offer law.

Under US law

Rule:
- The manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify another
person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it.
(Article 24 Restatement (Second) of Contracts)
- A counter-offer is an offer made by an offeree to his offeror relating to the same
matter as the original offer and proposing a substituted bargain differing from that
proposed by the original offer. (Article 39 Restatement (Second) of Contracts).

Application:
- There is a counter offer happen between Dave and Bill. Under the Restatememt
(Second) of Contract, a counteroffer is “an offer made by an offeree to his offeror
relating to the same matter as the original offer and proposing a substituted bargain
differing from that proposed by the original offer”. Counter offer is used as a rejection
to the initial offer, which terminates it and creates a new offer. The previous offeree
becomes the new offeror, and the previous offeror becomes the new offeree. Bill had
made a counteroffer that he wanted to buy two Sirions withr $32,000. Dave had
rejected this offer this means that Dave had not accepted every terms of the offer yet
and there was no agreement reached yet. And The first offer between Dave and Bill is
valid.
 - For a contract to be valid under the US law, it must have all 4 essential elements for
a valid contract: agreement, consideration, contractual capacity and legal object.
- Acceptance is the agreement of the offeree to the terms and conditions of the offer.
To which in this case, Bill has accepted the offer to buy the car. Consideration is a
performance or a promise of the parties in a contract. In this case, Bill has considered
the price and has not been given a number to refuse to buy the car at all.
Regarding the contractual capacity, assuming that both Dave and Bill have the
required capacity to enter into a contract and regarding the legality of the object, the
object here is the transfer of ownership of Sirion from him to Bill in exchange for the
price of $16,500, which is not illegal in any states.

Conclusion:

With all the proven elements above, the offer by Dave is still valid and he had to sold
the Sirion with a price of $16,500 for Bill.

Under Vietnamese law

Rule:
Article 386. Offer to enter into a contract
1. An offer to enter into a contract means a clear expression of the intention to enter
into a contract and be bound by this offer of the requesting party to the identified party
or to the public (collectively referred to as the proposed party).
Article 400. Time of entering into a contract
1. The contract shall be entered into at the time the requestor receives acceptance of
the contract.
3. The time of entering into a verbal contract is the time when the parties have agreed
on the contents of the contract.
Article 401. Validity of the contract
1. A legally entered into contract takes effect from the time of signing, unless
otherwise agreed upon or otherwise provided for by relevant law.

Application:

- According to Article 386 of the 2015 Civil Code, Dave made an offer to sell a new car
(A Daihatsu Sirion) to Bill for $16,500 on Sunday, December 30, 2009 Therefore, the
two parties agreed that Dave would sell Bill the car for $16,500.

- According to Article 389 of the 2015 Civil Code, Dave can only change or withdraw
the offer to enter into a contract in case Bill receives notice of the change or
 withdrawal of the offer before or at the same time as receiving the offer. The condition
that arises here is the devaluation of the dollar. If Dave and Bill had agreed on this in
advance, Bill could not buy the car for $16,500. In case Dave and Bill do not have a
prior agreement, Bill can buy the car for $16,500.

- According to Article 401 of the 2015 Civil Code, Dave and Bill had an offer agreement
for Dave to sell his new car to Bill for $16,500, which lasted for five days.

Conclusion:

- The verbal offer agreement is valid and can guarantee performance. In this case, Dave
offered to sell the new car to Bill for $16,500 on Sunday, December 30, 2009 and was
valid for 5 days. Although this agreement is only made verbally and is not recorded, it
is still legally valid if there is sufficient evidence and evidence to prove the consent of
the parties.
+ Th1: If Bill has enough evidence such as the recording to prove that Dave offered to
sell the new car for $16,500, then this agreement will go into effect and Dave will
have to comply with the original agreement.
+ Th2: If Bill doesn't have enough evidence to prove that Dave offered to sell the new
car for $16,500 then Bill won't be able to buy the car for $16,500 as Dave originally
agreed.
Difference:
Even there is a different in a way of approaching in order to interpret the case, the
conclusion when applying each jurisdiction is the same in which there is contract
formed between Dave and Bill. In US law, Dave had to sold the Sirion with price
of $16,500 for Bil. However in Vietnamese law, he only had to sold the Sirion
with price of $16,500 if Bill has enough evidence such as the recording to prove
that Dave offered to sell the new car for $16,500, then this agreement will go into
effect and Dave will have to comply with the original agreement.