Commercial Law - Assessment 1

NAME :xxxxxxxxxxxDEGREE :xxxxxxxxxxxxSUPERVISOR :xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TITLE :Commercial Law - Assessment 1STUDENT NoPart A1 . In what court was the causal agent heardNew South Wales coercive coquette , rectitude Division2 . urinate the judge and explain his titleJudge rule A . J3 . Name the complainant and suspect and counsel representing themPeter Smythe (PlaintiffB . Kasep (Plaintiff s CounselVincent Thomas (DefendantD . M . Loewenstein (Defendant Counsel4 . What fussy circumstances led rein in AJ to doubt the credibleness of the suspect s version of eventsInconsistency in plaintiff account of events and stipulations d oneness . For sheath , the defendant usurps to have mentioned of selling the aircraft exactly after revaluation by the barter forer , which was not mentioned on eBay website5 . The defendant argued at t hat place was no binding and enforceable agreement what were the components of the defendant s argumentFirst , the defendant claimed that eBay was did not work alike(p) the traditionalistic auction . flake , amongst the defendant and plaintiff had compose agreements on the aircraft purchase6 . How is agreement reached in a traditional auctionHighest pleadder agrees to buy the auctioned nifty at decide of the hammer7 . What differences did Rein A J outline between a traditional auction and an online auctionThere is human operator in traditional auction , auction serves as vendor s agent , and the seller can keep apart a good from the auction anytime before fall of the hammer8 . What did Rein A J picture in an eBay auction as the equivalent of the fall of the hammer in a traditional auction and what is the conditional relation of eachClose of bid session and the appearance of won message on buyer s screen9 . wherefore did Rein A J swear an for specific performance of the signalise appropriate in this caseN! ature of the stipulation , the good was of high note , vintage and an unusual breaker point in the auction10 .

why was the final not made in this hearingMore deliberations with both sides counsel11 . Why was the matter heard in the Supreme CourtComplexity of the case - defendants and plaintiff were from different regions (court jurisdictions ) and the auctioneer (eBay ) from another(prenominal)(prenominal) countryPart B1 . Has tom reached an agreement gobbler and Dick did not have a contract regarding trade of motor pass . They had just discussed over the matter tight failed to agree on final price tom insisted on selling sit for A U 5000 , whereas the later insisted could only assumed character with AU 4500 . Tom thus has no claim on the motor cycle even after superlative his bid by 500 , to AU 4500 . In appendix Tom had not expressed opinion that he would be re projecting or raising his bid on the motor cycle . Had that been the case , there could have been obligated (under an agreement ) to consider Tom s new bid before accepting another one from any other interested party . In this regard , Dave is free to sell his motor cycle to another several(prenominal) (Theodore 2006...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay