Amanda had placed a note in the students’ activities board in a private college of a tablet for sale. It read: *Samsung Galaxy Tab Note 1 10.1” *$700 *Call 016-1234567 if interested Ben saw the note and called the number saying that he would pay the asking price of $700. Shortly after Ben’s call, Candy met Amanda in the student’s cafeteria and said that she would pay $650 for it. Keen not to lose out to other potential buyers, Don called and told Amanda that he would pay $710 for the tablet. Amanda immediately replied that the tablet was his and that they would meet up at the library to complete the transaction. Ben and Candy were Don’s classmates and when they met for the afternoon class, a proud Don showed his tablet to them. Discuss the liability of Amanda, if any, to Ben and Candy. Answering guide The following should be included as advice for Amanda:- [a] The parties – Both Ben and Candy had a grievance against Amanda [b] The disputes – Both Ben and Candy would argue that Amanda had made an offer to sell, which each on their own, without knowledge of the other, has accepted – the former at the asking price, the latter at a reduced price. To these, Amanda would counter that they had misunderstood the law [c] The law/supporting authorities: *How to determine whether an agreement exists between any 2 parties: offer-acceptance analysis *Offer and Acceptance defined *Status of the note at the students’ notice board? Is it a valid offer which can be accepted or no offer whatsoever has been made? *Advertisement cases –English case law applies – this falls under what’s termed “invitation to treat” situations – Partridge v Crittenden. There are exceptions to the general rule. The question is whether Ben and Candy could come under the exceptions such as whether the advertisement contains words such as “1st come, 1st served”: Lefkowitcz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores or promise of reward for doing something: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball [d] Application of law to facts: Ben’s case: it’s an offer to buy for $700 – never accepted Candy’s case: it’s an offer to buy for $650 – ignored Don’s case: it’s an offer to buy for $710 – this was accepted by Amanda [e] Advice: Its unlikely that Amanda had incurred any liability to Ben and Candy. ( word limit – 750 words )

Amanda had placed a note in the students’ activities board in a private college of a tablet for sale. It read: *Samsung Galaxy Tab Note 1 10.1” *$700 *Call 016-1234567 if interested Ben saw the note and called the number saying that he would pay the asking price of $700. Shortly after Ben’s call, Candy met Amanda in the student’s cafeteria and said that she would pay $650 for it. Keen not to lose out to other potential buyers, Don called and told Amanda that he would pay $710 for the tablet. Amanda immediately replied that the tablet was his and that they would meet up at the library to complete the transaction. Ben and Candy were Don’s classmates and when they met for the afternoon class, a proud Don showed his tablet to them. Discuss the liability of Amanda, if any, to Ben and Candy. Answering guide The following should be included as advice for Amanda:- [a] The parties – Both Ben and Candy had a grievance against Amanda [b] The disputes – Both Ben and Candy would argue that Amanda had made an offer to sell, which each on their own, without knowledge of the other, has accepted – the former at the asking price, the latter at a reduced price. To these, Amanda would counter that they had misunderstood the law [c] The law/supporting authorities: *How to determine whether an agreement exists between any 2 parties: offer-acceptance analysis *Offer and Acceptance defined *Status of the note at the students’ notice board? Is it a valid offer which can be accepted or no offer whatsoever has been made? *Advertisement cases –English case law applies – this falls under what’s termed “invitation to treat” situations – Partridge v Crittenden. There are exceptions to the general rule. The question is whether Ben and Candy could come under the exceptions such as whether the advertisement contains words such as “1st come, 1st served”: Lefkowitcz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores or promise of reward for doing something: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball [d] Application of law to facts: Ben’s case: it’s an offer to buy for $700 – never accepted Candy’s case: it’s an offer to buy for $650 – ignored Don’s case: it’s an offer to buy for $710 – this was accepted by Amanda [e] Advice: Its unlikely that Amanda had incurred any liability to Ben and Candy. ( word limit – 750 words )