Question

31.a. Marcel, due to health problems, announced that he was selling his electronic equipment business. Paul, knowing Marcel's business activities, sent him an offer to purchase for $ 450,000, of which $ 75,000 payable immediately, with the balance payable in installments over the next two years. Marcel immediately emailed Paul stating, “The price and all other terms seem fair, except I need a larger first payment - say $ 125,000. Tell me how much you can increase the first payment. Paul replied that he could not increase the first payment. Marcel replied the next day that he had decided to accept the offer given his health. In the meantime, Paul learned that the business had lost value due to Marcel's health, and he refused to make the purchase. He alleged that since Marcel had refused his offer, there was no agreement. Is Paul right?

A) No, Paul is not right. Marcel accepted the offer so there is indeed a contract.

B) No, Paul is not right, because when an offer is made and the recipient of the offer decides to change only certain particulars, he has not accepted it. So there is a contract.

C) Yes, Paul is right, Marcel did not accept the offer but made a counter-offer. Paul not having accepted the counter-offer, there is no contract.

D) Paul is wrong and in bad faith. The acceptance of the recipient of the offer is irrevocable. There is a contract.

E) Paul is wrong, acceptance binds the offeror to the recipient of the offer. The contract thus formed is binding.

31.b. What obligation must be fulfilled by a minor when he refuses to honor a contract for goods which are not essential goods?

A) A minor who refuses to honor a contract for goods which are not essential goods is obliged to return them to the seller if they are still in his possession.

B) A minor who refuses to honor a contract for goods which are not essential goods can keep these goods because the contract concluded as a minor is not enforceable against him.

C) A minor who refuses to honor a contract for goods which are not essential goods can keep the goods because the contract concluded as a minor is not enforceable against him but enforceable against the other party,

D) Answers B and C.

E) None of the above.

31.c. Beauvins Ltée, a Montreal firm of wine importers, chartered the vessel Bacchus by entering into a contract with its owners, Normandie Ltée, to transport a shipment of Madeira wine to Montreal. The agreement included a condition that the charterers, Beauvins Ltée, would have to pay an additional $ 1,000 per day at the port of destination if the unloading of the boat was delayed for any reason. Unbeknownst to both parties, the wine was a prohibited product under the Canada Food and Drugs Act because it contained a preservative. When the ship reached Montreal, customs officials refused to give permission to unload pending determination of whether the cargo was compatible with federal law. The investigation and report from the government laboratory in Ottawa took ten days. Customs officials ultimately determined that the importation of this wine would be illegal and the cargo was transferred at the dock to another vessel for transport to New York. When Beauvins Ltée refused to pay the additional $ 25,000 demanded because of the delay, Normandie Ltée sued them for this sum. What defense could Beauvins Ltée offer?

A) Beauvins Ltée can claim that the contract between the parties must be ratified because it is prohibited by law (Food and Drugs Act).

B) Beauvins Ltée can allege that the contract between the parties is basically null because it is prohibited

by law (Food and Drugs Act).

C) Beauvin Ltée can allege that the contract between the parties must be re-entered because it is prohibited by law (Food and Drugs Act).

D) Beauvins Ltée may allege that the contract between the parties must be terminated because it is prohibited by law (Food and Drugs Act).

E) None of the above.

F) All of the above.

31.d. What is the main justification for the principle of responsibility for others?

A) The main justification for the principle of responsibility for others is as follows: everyone has an obligation of diligence towards others, i.e. an obligation to take care not to cause harm to others. 'other people.

B) The main justification for the principle of liability for others is the following: the obligation to subscribe to an insurance system which eliminates fault as the basis for claims.

C) The main justification for the principle of liability for others is as follows: anyone who directly causes harm to another must compensate him. It is a strict responsibility.

D) The main justification for the principle of responsibility for others is the following: any fact whatsoever of man, which causes damage to others, obliges the person through whose fault he arrived to repair it.

E) The main justification for the principle of vicarious liability is as follows: the person making the profit should also be responsible for the loss.

Answer 1

31.a

Option C is correct as Paul is right because Marcelo did not accepted the offer. Other options are not relevant.

31.b

C is correct because as per law it is not enforceable against minor, thus other options are incorrect.

31.c

Option B is correct because nobody make a contract which is against the law of the country. Other options do not represent the point.

31.d

A is correct, because it is the basis of responsibility for others, other options are not relevant.