Case 1 (contract law – offer or invitation to treat)
The latest laptop computers are displayed in a shop window at a very attractive price. A customer
comes into the shop and says that he would like to buy one of the laptop computers at the displayed
price. Another customer has seen the computers advertised in a promotional document received at
home and giving all the relevant information, including the very attractive price. He contacts the
sales person and says that he would like to buy the laptop computer. However, the salesperson no
longer wants to sell the computer at the advertised price.
Analyze this case and explain if a contract has been formed according to English law, to German law,
to Belgian/French Law.
Would the case have been solved differently if the sales person merely committed a material error in
the displayed price (he displayed a price of 43,45 EUR instead of 434,50 EUR) ?
Case 2 (contract law – invitation to treat)
The latest laptop computers are displayed in a shop window at a very attractive price. A customer
comes into the shop and says that he would like to buy one of the laptop computers at the displayed
price. Another customer has seen the computers advertised in a promotional document received at
home and giving all the relevant information, including the very attractive price. He contacts the
sales person and says that he would like to buy the laptop computer. However, the salesperson no
longer wants to sell the computer at the advertised price.
Analyze this case and explain if a contract has been formed according to Italian law and to Dutch law
as well as according to the EU proposal of regulation on a Common European Sales Law.
Would the case have been solved differently if the sales person merely committed a material error in
the displayed price (he displayed a price of 43,45 EUR instead of 434,50 EUR) ?
Case 3 (contract law – offer and acceptance)
Present the English case Harvey v Facey (Privy Council July 29th, 1893): explain the facts and the
point of view of the Privy Council. What is the significance and the importance of this decision. How
would a French or a Belgian judge solve the case? How would a German judge solve the case ?
Explain, in each of those four legal systems, if you find any differences regarding the rules of offer
and acceptance when the sale concerns land compared to the normal rules of offer and acceptance ?
Case 4 (Contract law – Offer and acceptance)
Michael has four pet white rats which have been trained to dance together as a group. They escape
from their cage. Michael places and advertisement in the local newspaper describing the rats and
promises to pay £ 700 for each rat to anyone who returns the rats to him. Kathy, one of Michael’s
neighbours, finds one rat and keeps it warm and well fed in a shoe box overnight and then takes it to
Michael’s house. Before she can reach the house, the rat escapes from the shoe box, runs away from
her, and then wriggles through a hole back into Michael’s house. Erik searches diligently for the rats
during two days and spends £ 15 on bus fares travelling to different parts of the city. When he finds
one of the rats, he takes it home and does not immediately return it. David finds another rat.
Unfortunately, it has been savaged by a fox and is now dead. David takes the corpse to Michael who
refuses to pay him anything. Johanna, Michael’s sister, finds another rat in her room. She gives the
rat to Michael who refuses to pay her anything. Michael decides that, as one of the rats is dead,
there is no point in reassembling them as a dancing group. Accordingly, he distributes leaflets
everywhere in the city cancelling the promise of a reward. Erik does not see the leaflets and returns
the rat found to Michael later that day. Michael refuses to pay him anything.
Solve the case according to English law for each of the four concerned persons.
Relevant case law might include Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees
Ltd (1978), Errington v Errington (1952) and Shuey v United States.
Case 5 (Contract law – Consideration)
Explain the legal concept of consideration using the following case law :
Chappell v Nestlé (1960)
Roscorta v Thomas (1842)
Ward v Byham (1956)
Arrale v Coastal Engineering (1976)
Case 6 (Contract law- consideration)
Explain the doctrine of promissory estoppel using the case D & C Builders v Rees (1966).
Compare with American law (§ 90 Restatement (second) of Contracts) and with French and
German law.
Case 7 (Contract law – Formation of contract – Conditions)
Mr. Halambique, the “concierge” of an apartment building, is planning to retire shortly.
Before Mr. Halambique leaves his position, Mrs. Szut who is interested in the job, promises
to pay him a sum of money if he introduces her to the owner of the building. Mr. Halambique
introduces Mrs. Szut to the owner and she is hired as the new concierge. However, she
refuses to pay Mr. Halambique the promised sum because the owner of the building was in
no way compelled to hire her following Mr. Halambique’s introduction and was free to hire
whoever he choose to replace the old concierge. Is she right or should she pay ? What
outcome would you suggest for Mr. Halambique’s claim under French, Swiss and Austrian
law ? What are the conditions for the formation of a valid contract under each of these legal
systems ? What are the conditions for the formation of a valid contract under the Principes
Unidroit ?
Case 8 (Contract law – Offer and acceptance)
A wine cooperative participates in a trade fair for the wine industry, offering among others, a
red wine not previously marketed in the country. Following the trade fair, on June 10th a
supermarket sends the wine cooperative an order for 20,000 cases of this wine at a price of
68 EUR per case, for a total contract price of 1,360,000 EUR. When the order arrives on 11
June, the wine cooperative’s sales manager is absent from the office for a business trip. Since
the order as placed by the supermarket is slightly different from the wine cooperative’s price
quotation, it is necessary to await the return of the cooperative’s sales manager to authorize
its acceptance. On June 13th, the wine cooperative receives an e-mail message sent by the
supermarket purporting to withdraw the offer. The cooperative’s sales manager returns on
June 14th. Unaware of the e-mail purporting to withdraw the offer, he signs the contract and
sends it to the supermarket. The signed contract is received at the supermarket on June 15th.
Variation
In the letter accompanying the order, the supermarket’s wine buyer stipulated that he
needed an acceptance of the order by June 16th, since it was important for him to be able to
plan for the wine promotion; if there were no acceptance of the order by then, the
supermarket would turn to another wine distributor.
Is there a contract (or in other words, could the supermarket revoke its offer) ? Present the
solutions in Belgian/French law, in German law and in Dutch law. Also present the solution of
the Draft Common Frame of Reference. What are the arguments for and against the different
solutions found in the materials ? In your opinion, which solution best meets the interests of
all of the parties involved ?
Case 9 (Contract law – Offer and acceptance)
A wine cooperative participates in a trade fair for the wine industry, offering among others, a
red wine not previously marketed in the country. Following the trade fair, on June 10th a
supermarket sends the wine cooperative an order for 20,000 cases of this wine at a price of
68 EUR per case, for a total contract price of 1,360,000 EUR. When the order arrives on 11
June, the wine cooperative’s sales manager is absent from the office for a business trip. Since
the order as placed by the supermarket is slightly different from the wine cooperative’s price
quotation, it is necessary to await the return of the cooperative’s sales manager to authorize
its acceptance. On June 13th, the wine cooperative receives an e-mail message sent by the
supermarket purporting to withdraw the offer. The cooperative’s sales manager returns on
June 14th. Unaware of the e-mail purporting to withdraw the offer, he signs the contract and
sends it to the supermarket. The signed contract is received at the supermarket on June 15th.
Variation
In the letter accompanying the order, the supermarket’s wine buyer stipulated that he
needed an acceptance of the order by June 16th, since it was important for him to be able to
plan for the wine promotion; if there were no acceptance of the order by then, the
supermarket would turn to another wine distributor.
Is there a contract (or in other words, could the supermarket revoke its offer) ? What would
be the outcome under English law ? How would the case be solved under the American
Restatement of Law (second) Contracts and how does the Uniform Commercial Code deal
with this question ? What are the solutions in Québec and Louisiana ? What are the
arguments for and against the different solutions found in the materials ? In your opinion,
which solution best meets the interests of all of the parties involved ?