On June 1, Claude by letters, offered to sell his 2011 Honda CRV for $3m to Sonia, Jen and Harris.

He stated in the letter that the offer would remain open until June 8. Both Sonia and Jen received the letters the same day the letters were sent.

Advise To Inform Claude: Here you have issued a simple contract (contracts which are not deeds) to multiple individuals. In which you have made a proposal to enter into a legally binding agreement with one of three persons.

Sonia, on receiving the letter, thought it was a good price an immediately replied to Claude stating that she was interested in buying the car and that she wanted an expert to give his opinion on the vehicle. She sent a cheque for $1mil with her letter to show her commitment in buying the car, requesting that Claude should not show the car to anyone until she gives her feedback on June 8. On receiving the cheque, Claude immediately lodged the cheque in his bank account.

Advise To Outline This Scenario To Claude: First and foremost, Sonia agreed that the 3mil was a good price and therefore sent her willingness of acceptance in written form to you, including a cheque amounting to one-million dollars (unilateral acceptance) whereby making herself bound by the terms of your offer. Lodging the cheque into your account signified that you have come to an agreement and therefore you automatically entered into a contract with Sonia. Meaning the offer should not have been available to anyone else.

Note: Sonia also made it clear in her letter a condition, which she requested of you to refrain from

showing the car to anyone. However, since the lapse of time was the 8th of June. She had enough time to get the vehicle analyzed. Hence, presuming she would get back to you with the other two-million dollars. So to, end the contract (executed contract).

Jen, on receiving the letter, immediately phoned Claude, but did not get him so he left a message on his answering machine stating that he would pay $2.5 for the vehicle. Claude did not check his machine. Jen waited for Claudes response, however not wanting to lose the car, left another message saying he would pay $3mil. Claude retrieved both messages on June 3.

Advise To Inform Claude: Even though Sonia has already accepted your offer, Jen has no knowledge of this. Jen whereby made a counter offer or conditional acceptance, destroying/rejecting the original offer of threemillion dollars with his new offer of two-million five-hundred thousand dollars. However, Jen then created a new offer, thus reinstating your original offer.

On the 5th of June, Claude decided to advertise the vehicle, hoping to get more for it. Marty, seeing the advertisement came to Claude and introduced himself as Mr. Markland, the owner of a popular guest house in town. He knew of the guest house, so he did not ask him for any identification. He gave Claude a cheque for $2.6 and drove away the car. The cheque was dishonored. Claude also discovered that Marty was not Mr. Markland. The car has been resold to Sheryl, a doctor and the man has absconded with the money.

Advise On The Following Situation: The decision made to advertise the vehicle for more money was a speculation in disregard to the binding contract between you and Sonia. Contracting with Mr. Markland opposed to Jen is ridiculous. It seems to me that you did business on the views of social status. On the other hand, Marty has committed numerous offenses: 1. Identity Theft 2. Fraud by False Representation 3. Larceny 4. Swindling - Obtaining Vehicle by Deception etc.

Harris returned home on June 7 and saw the letter from Claude. Five minutes later Claude called Harris and personally told him he was withdrawing his offer to sell him the car. Harris still proceeded to post his letter of acceptance on June 8th to Claude.

Insight: In revocation of your offer, Harris seemed to have not understood the terms you have represented to him. However the offer was extinguished by expiry of time on June 8th. Rights and obligations arise only when an agreement is formed. Harris is made free to accept or reject it. You are also free to pull it back. However, to bind a person making the offer would be creating obligations before formation of an agreement. Thus, you have no obligations to Harris. You are free to withdraw your offer.

Claude checks into the Mardi Gras Hotel and after registering at the front desk he went to his room and there he saw a very large notice over the bed which stated that the hotel was not liable for any losses and/or damage suffered by any guests while on the property. He left his gold watch and bracelet in the room and went to dinner; He gave the key to the receptionist for safekeeping. When he returned to the room, he discovered that the jewellery and other important documents were missing. The hotel denies liability for the loss of the items. Insight: The sigh that was positioned over the bed wasnt bought to your attention on time. In that, it should have situated either at the entrance of the lobby, on the outside or even at the front desk.

My Overall Assessment & Advise

It seems facile to say that there was indeed an offer with Sonia and that the offer was accepted. Even though the cheque was lodged and feedback wasnt given. The action of lodgment commenced the final stage of the proposal, consisting of lawful consideration and the view of legal aspect. Regarding all that is said there has been a breach of contract (failure to perform an absolute duty) and Sonia should therefore be compensated for all sums due to her. Jen should be notified that the offer is no longer available to him, and that it has been withdrawn. Because an offer is the basis of the transaction, an offer must be in reasonable detail: it must be clear just what is being offered and on what terms. The contract settled with Mr. Markland (a stranger) or should I say Marty Lack Genuineness of Assent. On the basis of validity, the contract is not valid because of mistake, misrepresentation. There was no contractual intention of binding with someone of bad reputation only with someone of good intention. Marty performed an illegal act that should be reported to the police and notification be made to the insurance company regarding his vehicle. Sonia, Jen and Harris are persons well know and therefore a contract of trust could have been formed with any of these three. Greed gets the best of men. And popularity causes blindness to where the aim thoroughly lies. It is wise to wait and see everyones offer before dissolution of any assets. In addition, adequate identification should have been presented also including the requirement of referees, witnesses (a lawyer) and identification such as National ID, TRN, Drivers License and Passport. The matter involving Claude, Sonia, Marty & Sheryl should be presented before the court to attain sufficient ruling. The fact that Marty disappeared doesnt mean that he cannot be found. If necessary actions are taken, everyone can be compensated. Exclusion Clause