LW Global Chapter 5 Questions UNCISG
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition
Free Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums for ACCA and CIMA exams
20% off ACCA & CIMA Books
OpenTuition recommends the new interactive BPP books for March and June 2025 exams.
Get your discount code >>
Regarding the last question, i believe The shopkeeper’s response in this scenario has legal significance, but it does not constitute a binding offer. Instead, i think it should be considered as an “invitation to treat,” which is a preliminary communication indicating a willingness to negotiate or receive offers, rather than a definitive offer that, once accepted, forms a contract.
You need to check out the case Harvey v Facey.
Here’s a summary from Wikipedia:
Harvey v Facey [1893],[1] is a contract law case decided by the United Kingdom Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from the Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica. In 1893 the Privy Council held final legal jurisdiction over most of the British Caribbean n.[2] Its importance in case law is that it defined the difference between an offer and supply of information. The Privy Council held that indication of lowest acceptable price does not constitute an offer to sell. Rather, it is considered a response to a request for information, specifically a “precise answer to a precise question” about the lowest acceptable price which the seller would consider.
Does that help?
Please can we confirm the second answer is correct?
Apologies I mean the answer to the second question
I’m happy with it. Why are you not happy? Which option do you think it should be?
Thank you for your response. According to the notes the UNCISG does not apply to contracts where goods are purchased for personal use except the seller knew or ought to have known about it, and that option is what is marked as the correct answer.
Can we instead consider the answer that talks about passing title and payments as the correct answer ?
Hmm! The passing of title is a tricky area and is particularly the area that is addressed by the introduction and adoption of Incoterms. Until a question is given that specifies the Incoterms, we have to assume the question is not about the passing of title
This particular question is asking about the applicability of UNCISG and the ‘wrong’ three are reasonably obvious. The correct solution is the one that gives the seller an ‘out’ clause – ie how could the seller have possibly known that the goods were for private use?
Is that ok?
I believe the answer provided for Chapter 5 UNCISG practice questions (No. 5) to be wrong. The convention defines “Sufficiently Definite” as;
1. shows intent to be bound by its terms if accepted
2. gives details of quantity and price of goods OR makes provision for their determination.
If it is not address to a specific individual is an “INVITATION”
Actually, an offer is “sufficiently definite” if it indicates goods quantity and price or makes provision for their determination.
Specific address is not considered sufficiently definite.
What’s the difference between the two words where I say, for example …
“I frequently drink a cup of coffee before breakfast” compared with
“I occasionally drink a cup of coffee before breakfast”
Surely the difference is obvious form the context
What would have been a more tricky pair of words to distinguish is where one of the words is “regularly”
“Regularly” suggests a degree of regularity about the event – a consistent lapse of time between the occurrence of an event and the subsequent occurrences
Thus I could say that, in the sky, the moon regularly appears in the early evening. That suggests a consistent time period between successive moon appearances
It would not be appropriate to claim that the moon appears “frequently” nor “occasionally”
I could appropriately claim that, in the FA Cup competition, clubs from the premier league frequently defeat clubs from the lower divisions
At the same time, I can appropriately claim that, in the FA Cup competition, clubs from the lower divisions occasionally defeat clubs from the premier league
I suppose all this comes down to a question of the probability of the recurrence of an event
OK?
What is the real difference between frequently and occasionally. Both are stating that it is often mistaken for an offer but not always. I would think that it would have been better to ask this as a True or False question.