Principles of business law two questions in an assignment Essay

Principles of business law two questions in an assignment - Essay Example She later refused to pay back this sum of money to Peter. Can he sue her Would it make any difference to your answer if, instead of borrowing this sum of money to go for a boat cruise, she had actually borrowed this sum of money to go for a study tour of China organized by her school In answering these questions, the major source of support was Article 2 of the US Uniform Commercial Code, which broadly covers the law governing sales contracts. Meanwhile the examples of cases cited were taken from English cases. Q1. According to section 2-205 of the US Uniform Commercial Code, in every sales contract, there must be an object on offer, an offer made, an acceptance made, and an exchange. The person making the offer is called the offeror and the person making the acceptance is called the offeree. Even if the offeree has made up his mind to a final acceptance, the agreement is not yet complete. There must be an external manifestation of his assent. This can be some word spoken or act done by the offeree or by his authorised agent, which a court of law can regard as the communication of the acceptance to the offeror. What constitutes communication varies with the nature of the case and has provoked many difficult problems. a) The first scenario mak... What constitutes communication varies with the nature of the case and has provoked many difficult problems. a) The first scenario makes a lot of difference in the interpretation and analysis of the case. Going by the facts of the case, Jane's acceptance was sent within a reasonable time, such that even though Andrew received the letter 'late', the court could still deem the contract enforceable. This view has support from section 2-207(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code, which states that 'A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance' Jane could rightly evoke the provisions of this article to rightfully sue Andrew for a breach of contract. Carrying out the stipulated task is enough to constitute acceptance of the offer. However, by making an underpayment for the postage stamp, Jane indirectly failed to communicate to Andrew her acceptance of the offer. This was contrary to the general rule that an acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. The case of Jane and Andrew is typical of one where the postal rule can not be applied because the letter of acceptance was not properly posted (Simpson, 1987). As an academic problem, the postal rule in the work of Wald & Williston (1906) could be evoked to give three possible answers to this scenario in the following light: an offer made through the post might be regarded as accepted in the eyes of the law: i) as soon as the letter of acceptance is put into the post; or ii) when the letter of acceptance is delivered to the offeror's address; or iii) when the letter of acceptance is