Bishop V Armstrong Aggregate Company
Facts Summary. Aggregates Company sent a letter of offer to the plaintiff on 2nd May to sell scrap mica at $180 per ton. The petitioner received the letter on the following day. Some few weeks later, Bishop learned that the market price had rocketed to $185 per ton. Bishop wrote to the respondent on 22nd purporting to accept the offer. Armstrong received the letter on May 30th, Armstrong repudiated the offer and adjusted the offer to sell at $ 187, the current market price.
Legal Issues. Under this case, the court would have to make a determination on three issues. First, whether Bishop’s acceptance was capable of being construed reasonable in the circumstances. Precisely, it would have to find out at what time the acceptance became valid. Secondly, whether Bishop’s response could be considered an acceptance to buy at the market price or the set price. Lastly, the court must find out if the respondent is in breach of any contract.
Argument. The Armstrong’s letter was to sell at $180 per ton and not any other price. However, due to many dynamics, the offer cannot be construed to remain open with entirety. Although the contract is silent on the duration it is open, it is one of the implied contracts. Now, what is reasonable is a dictation of the distinctive nature of each context. Here, Bishop had learned from valid sources of changes to market price thus aware of possible changes. Acceptance by post is valid at the time of posting and as such, Bishops acceptance arrived when the market price had risen by two bars. If anything, the claimant had not provided any consideration to this direction, thus too early to append liability.
Marie-Claude Liability Case
Facts Summary. The respondent operated a bowling alley located in a commercial area in close proximity to a residential area. The neighboring children used the parking lot as playing lot. On several occasions, Marie chased small children from the place. A certain child aged six years had proved a notable nuisance. He would climb over the bowling alley using a fence. It is undisputed that Marie had ordered the child off the wall on several accounts. In her absence, the boy resorted to the same behavior and fell on the wall sustaining serious injuring. The ensuing action was for the determination of liability of the accused.
Questions of Determination. The main question for determination was whether the Marie-Claude owed a duty of care to the children in the nearing proximity. Second, whether Marie efforts sufficed to dispense with liability.
Argument. The law of negligence recognizes that a child has no capability to act in a reasonable manner like an adult (Cross, 2015). In this case, we are talking about an entirely small child. The respondent cannot possibly mount contributory negligence and assumption of risk defenses as part of her argument. In reality, the latter can be argued out to proof that having seen children climb that wall in the past she had, in fact, assumed that risk. Perhaps the only argument would be the fact she had warned children in the past. However, those efforts were inefficient and ultimately left children to their own devices. Proper ways of restraining children would have sufficed. She is, therefore, liable to the extent of inaction to mount proper restrictive measures.
Alice V Silver Flatware Ltd Case
Summary. Alice is a minor aged 17 years. She bumps into an advert by Silver Flatware Ltd., offering to sell silver flatware on hire purchase basis. A coupon setting out the terms of pay and details of prospective buyer backed the advert. Alice filled the coupon and mailed it back. She made several payments before writing back to the seller to repudiate the contract before her 18th birthday. A protracted correspondence arose. The company sought to repossess all the products sold while retaining the funds already made.
Questions of Determination. The hypothesis raises two important issues. First, whether Alice was capable of operating valid contract. Whether in either position to the first question, the company could recover from the minor.
Argument. A contract with a minor is null and void (Preston & Crowther, 2012). The law of contract recognizes the possibility of unequal bargaining powers between minors and adults. However, courts are prepared to enforce contracts for essentials, but this is not one of them. This constitutes her other defense. Contracts with minors operate on good faith as a child can choose to repudiate it before reaching the age of majority. This she has done and constitute a good defense. As an established custom, a person cannot recover for breach of contract from a minor.
Habitation Apartment’s Ltd. V. Good Times Bank Case
Summary. Habitation apartment’s Ltd took a loan with good time’s bank with its three years mortgage as the security. The bank took demanded some additional security and Simple, the president gave a personal guarantee. Before full payment, Simple shareholders voted him out as a president. The bank reorganized its operations and extended the loan term by three years but with a higher rate. Simple was unaware of the changes. Due to unavoidable circumstances, the company defaulted the pay, and the company turned simple under guarantor’s arrangement to recover.
Issues. The facts raise two important issues; whether the new changes by the bank alter the effect of the contract and whether the bank could recover from the guarantor in the circumstances.
Argument. In the event of default by a principle, a creditor has the option to recover from the guarantor. However, the law requires this to be a last resort option. It is indisputable, the corporation is incapable of acting its part, and thence Simple by the operation of guarantor document becomes culpable. However, much has changed and the bank has altered the terms of the contract fundamentally without the knowledge of the guarantor. The latter arrangement is thus not capable of attaching liability to the guarantor. The scope of liability of the guarantor is specified in the initial document and the latter changes constitute a different contract not binding to either party and offer no chance for Simple to assess the risk beforehand (Immenga & Rudo, 2012). The bank has to explore all options against principle debtor including attaching the mortgaged property.
References
Cross, R. A. (2015). Minors Under the Age of Seven; Incapable of Primary Negligence
or Intentional Torts; Conclusive Presumption; DeLuca v. Bowden. Akron Law Review,
9(2), 8.
Immenga, U., & Rudo, J. (2012). Unlimited liability of state-owned banks under the EC-rules
of state aids. Springer Science & Business Media.
Preston, C. B., & Crowther, B. T. (2012). Minor Restrictions: Adolescence Across
Legal Disciplines, the Infancy Doctrine, and the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and
Unjust Enrichment. Kansas Law Review, 61, 343-76.
