Forum Replies Created
- Posts
The attempted ‘revision’ to the contract was at the end of February / start of March so anything before that date is past. Therefore that includes options A, B and C and leaves just option D as consideration that is not passed
OK?
As already indicated in my previous post, this is further confirmation of the principle.
Again, thanks for your input
Jon, I’m sure there must be loads of cases to illustrate the ‘reward’ exception to adverts / offers. However, given that this is a law exam for accountants and not a law exam for lawyers, the number of illustrative cases necessary to establish the principle does not need, I believe, to be any more extensive than is covered by the notes and lectures.
But thanks as always for your input
If you’re looking for a practising certificate for the UK, then you will need to sit the English variant
OK?
Whoa Jon! You’re reading a lot into the question that isn’t even hinted at! I agree that the payment into the bank was a worry that I pondered over but, eventually dismissed as a red-herring.
There was a past exam question where a car (?) was advertised for a cash sale and someone accepted but stated that they needed to go to their bank to arrange for the funds to be available. Was that acceptance valid? The advert had included words such as ‘this is a serious offer’, ‘cash only’, ‘first come first served’
The provided solution (I don’t remember the quoted case that set the precedent) was that the ‘acceptance’ was good because the acceptor had undertaken to carry out the necessary actions to obtain the cash and had started on those actions. ‘Once the actions necessary to formalise the acceptance have started, the offeror cannot go back on the offer’
I don’t remember the precise wording of the question but I do remember that invitation, offer and acceptance were crucial to ‘the story’ and that the ‘going to the bank to arrange the necessary finance’ was also crucial.
OK?
But this surely confirms the premise that, if the Courts cannot attribute causation to any individual source, the Courts will not assign causality to any specific single source where many could have contributed
Hi
Good question! However, let’s follow the transaction through.
The agent (A) enters into a contract with a third party (TP) and obtains benefit from that contract.
A then refuses to pay TP so TP chases the Principal (P).
P says ‘Sorry, but A’s authority was terminated before he entered the contract’
TP says ‘I didn’t know that so, so far as I am concerned, you are primarily liable’
Agreed, P has to pay TP.
But is P going to sit back and say to himself ‘Oh dear. Maybe I should have told everyone (in the World?) that A is no longer acting with my authority’
Of course, P will regret not having taken the necessary steps to prevent such a situation arising
BUT surely P is now going to pursue A to recover the money that P has just had to pay out to TP
And A IS therefore liable
OK?
Oh! Mike, Mike, Mike! Self-berating – RTFQ
You’re correct of course – option A mentions the emails as being invitations whereas I’m working on the basis that the original advert was the invitation.
Let’s have another (more careful) look!
Option A is clearly incorrect – the emails are offers following the advert invitation to treat
Option B If the advert is an invitation, that’s not available to be ‘accepted’ so Option B is incorrect
Option D also incorrect because the advert (as above) is an invitation and not available to be ‘accepted’
And that leaves us with Option C – the emails ARE offers following the advert invitations. And Hedge presumably does not want to accept these offers so does not need to sell the tyres for £40
Makes sense now? I hope so – and there’s a lesson for you (and it’s one that I emphasised over and over again to students) RTFQ
Humble apologies for my breach of my own exhortations!
And the OpenTuition course notes, lectures and forums are not sufficient (when combined with a revision kit from an approved publisher)? That combination appears to have worked for countless students in the past!
Let me know if there’s any particular issue that you come across in your law studies.
OK?
Hmmm! Yet another tricky question, Iniss! Where are you finding these ?
The three elements of a successful claim for negligence are:
Existence of a duty of care and breach of that duty
Direct consequential loss resulting from a breach of the duty
Application by the Court of the ‘But for’ testIn your post, and applying the three elements to your question, I can suggest only that the ‘apparent’ negligence was in breach of the duty of care and that the unreasonable and unusual act of the claimant should nevertheless have been anticipated by the ‘negligent’ defendant
I have two further comments:
Are you sure that you have transcribed the question correctly?, and
In an exam, there is a chance that I would have seriously considered selecting option A (options B and C are clearly incorrect) although option D is clearly correct whereas option A is only ‘potentially’ correctDoes that make sense?
This is not a situation that I have ever previously considered – and I’ve certainly never been asked before either!
But I believe that I’m correct. Yes, after 21 days, the charge is invalid if not registered and the debt is no longer secured (never was!) and becomes immediately repayable on demand. But then subsequent registration takes place crucially before Otto comes onto the scene. I have to assume that the charging instrument (the debenture document) was amended to show the revision to the important dates. If it hadn’t been so amended, the Registrar of Companies would not have acknowledged / registered the charge
OK?
Hi Iniss. A debenture is created on a loan and, to be valid, it should be registered within 21 days of its creation. If it is not registered within that 21 days, the loan doesn’t go away. It’s no longer classed as being a validly registered debenture, but the loan still exists.
Subsequently, registration of this outstanding loan is effected beyond the 21 days time limit.
A few days / weeks / months later a further loan is borrowed and is correctly registered within the allowable 21 days.
So, who has priority?
I believe the 21 day allowable registration period is for the purposes of determining priority where a second loan is borrowed within that 21 day allowable period for registration of the first loan.
In an ideal world, if someone asks to borrow money from you, you would wait 21 days to ensure that there are no prior claims against the assets that are being offered as security.
But in the case of Peppa and Otto, (late) registration IS effected before Otto is approached so the Peppa debenture would rank ahead of the Otto debenture
Does that coincide with your understanding / BPP kit answers?
OK?
Oh dear, Emma! Make up your mind – are you starting on ACCA or are you studying for CIMA CS3?
Either way, this is not the forum on which you should be advertising your scammy products!
Unless it’s a ‘reward’ situation (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company) English Law takes an advert to be an invitation to treat rather than an offer capable of being accepted.
This being so, and in the absence of any information of any kind of ‘reward’, I would suggest that Hedge’s advert would be seen by the Court to be an invitation to treat and therefore option (a) would seem to me to be the correct answer.
HOWEVER!!!!! I believe that you would not have posted this question if the printed solution had also given option (a) as being correct. So, What does the printed solution offer as the answer?
I await with baited breath!
I’ve already congratulated you once but, given you felt the need to post twice, I feel that I should reciprocate and congratulate you again. 🙂
Well done
Well, this is a new one that I’ve never been asked before!
The way that you have asked the question would lead me to answer ‘No’ – how / why can a person, alleged to nave been negligent, be deemed to have in his / her mind the consequences of their negligence BEYOND the consequences suffered by their legal neighbours. This is the proximity defence that would be raised by any defendant
However, looking at it from a different perspective, surely one could argue that ‘there are people that will be affected by your acts and they, I assume / presume would qualify as sufficiently proximate and thus qualify for the title of being a legal neighbour’
So, the existence of legal presumptions could, I feel, be applied to a tort case.
However, can the presumption be fairly applied (and be rebuttable) to ‘intention to create legal relations’
I’m struggling here to get a tortious act (a wrongful act or omission) to apply to intent. Certainly in Bourhill v Young, Young could not have foreseen the heavily pregnant Mrs Bourhill’s claimed reaction to looking at the resultant mess from Mr Young’s accident. Should he have anticipated Mrs Bourhill’s existence some 50 yards beyond the crash.
No, I can’t fasten the presumption to his negligence.
We’re also faced with the dilemma as to whether a statement made that subsequently proves to be false is intended to induce the other party to enter into a contractual relationship. Yes, I suppose we can have this ‘negligent misrepresentation’ as being a statement made with the intention of creating a legal relationship.
But, on its own, I don’t believe that a negligent statement can have a rebuttable presumption applied to it … so I’m sticking with my initial reaction – a concept of rebuttable presumption of intention to create legal relations cannot be applied to a tort per se .
OK?
You say ‘I have just read that it is 3 years for a private company and 6 years for a public one’
Can you let me know ‘where’ you have just read this?
