Different Business Structures and Their Advantages and Disadvantages

3288818_558914992_blaw300assessment2
Question #1
In this case an offer was made by Mr. Grimes to Mr. Howard for selling his collection of
Canadian oil paintings. In the offer, it was mentioned that the act remain open until Monday,
January 4, 9 AM. However, on January 3, Mr. Grimes decided that he was going to sell the
paintings to his neighbor. When Mr. Howard lies about it, he rushed to the house of Mr. Grimes
and expressed his willingness to accept the offer. In this context, the law of contract provides that
the promise to keep the offer open can be enforced by the other party only if such promise has
been supported by consideration provided by the other party. In the present case, Mr. Howard
had not provided any consideration in return of the promise made by Mr. Grimes to keep your
open until Monday. In Dickinson v Dodds (1876) it was held by the court that the promised to
keep the offer open is a contract in itself and that needs to be supported by some consideration.
In this case, Mr. Dodds made an offer to Mr. Dickinson for selling a house for £800. The offer
was going to remain open until Friday, but on Thursday, some other person told Mr. Dickinson
that the House has already been sold to some other person. Therefore, Mr. Dickinson, gave his
acceptance to the offer to Mr. Dodds, but he said that it was too late and the house is already
been sold. Under the circumstances, Mr. Dickinson initiated proceedings or breach of contract.
The court stated that when it was known to the party to the offer was made that the property has
already been sold to some other person, it was too late for such party to accept the offer.
Question #2

In the present case, the contract created between Mrs. Dunne and the bank can be grounds of
unconscionability. The relevant case in this regard is that of Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd
and Amadio. The principle of unconscionable conduct has been designed in the beginning for
upholding equity and fair pay. This principle defines the unconscionable behavior that attracts
censure and justifies the grant of relief by the court to those who may suffer as a result of it. This
doctrine was put in practice by the courts and later on the validity of this principle was
strengthened by the decision given in 1983 in Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio. In
this case, an elderly Italian migrant couple became the guarantors of the loan taken by their son.
The manager of the bank was aware of the fact that probably their son had misrepresented facts
for the purpose of getting his parents to stand as guarantors. Therefore in the present case it
needs to be seen if any misrepresentation has been made by Mr. Dunne, to his wife. So that she
may stand as guarantor for the loan obtained by her husband. Under the circumstances, regarding
the contract that has been created between Mrs. Dunne and the bank, it needs to be seen if the
contract is hit by the issue of unconscionability.
Question #3
The issue in the present case is if the sales person has made any misrepresentation and what is
the effect of certain misrepresentation on the contract created between the car dealership and
Sayid. In this context, a misrepresentation can be described as a form of statement that has been
made before the formation of the contract between the parties. In this regard there are two types
of statements that are made by the parties before entering into a contract. Therefore, either these
statements (i) form a part of the contract or (ii) The statements do not form a part of the contract
and legislative become a representation. In this context, the courts try to give effect to the

intention of the parties so far as possible. For this purpose, an objective standard is applied.
There are several presumptions related with how and when the statement has been made and
these held the court in finding out if a statement is a contractual term or a representation
(Claudio, 2014).
In this context, the law provides that when the content of their party has been obtained by
misrepresentation, such party has the option to (i) awarded the contract; (ii) rescind the content
within reasonable time or if (ii) the party thinks fit, insist that the other party should perform the
contract and it should be placed in the same position in which it would have been if the
representation was true (Bainbridge, 2009). In the present case, these remedies are also available
to Sayid as the contract has been formed on the basis of misrepresentation made by the
salesperson of the car dealership.
Question #4
The issue in this case is that there are different types of goods and different types of options are
available to the parties regarding the delivery of goods. However the question arises that what
will happen to the contract if the goods that are the subject matter of the goods have been
destroyed or perished (Reiter, 2006). The law of contract provides that when there is an
agreement to sell any particular goods and later on the goods, without the fault of the parties,
have been destroyed or perished or has become so damaged so that they don't answer to the
description anymore, the agreement between the parties has to be considered as void under the
law of contract, provided the goods have destroyed before the ownership and the risk has passed
on to the buyer. The basis for this rule is the impossibility of performance (Van Duzer and
Anthony, 2009).

In the present case also the contract between Claire and Bella can be described as void because
in this case also, without any fault of the parties and without any knowledge, the car has already
perished in the fire. Therefore it can be stated that in this case, there is no contract between the
parties.
Question #5
The issue in this case is related with the enforceability of illegal contract. The law provides that
an illegal contract can be described as the agreement that violates the law. The reason is that the
fulfillment of the contract needs the parties to involve in any illegal activity. According to the
law of contract, such a contract cannot be enforced under the law and it cannot be enforced at all.
The result is that in case of a breach of such a contract, the parties are not allowed by the law to
hold the other party liable or to get compensation for the breach of contract (Welling, 1991).
In the present issue the contract between Miles and John can be described as an illegal contract.
The reason is that according to this contract, John offered to pay $500 to Miles for giving a
wrong statement. However, John only gave $100 and refused to pay the rest of the money. But as
the contract is an illegal contract, the parties do not get the right to get compensation in case of
the breach of the contract (Pearch and Ilya, 2011). Hence, in this case, Miles cannot sue John for
the breach of contract.