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 tap , rectitude Division2 . urinate the judge and explain his titleJudge tackle A . J3 . Name the plaintiff and suspect and counsel representing themPeter Smythe (PlaintiffB . Kasep (Plaintiff s CounselVincent Thomas (DefendantD . M . Loewenstein (Defendant Counsel4 . What fussy circumstances led decree AJ to doubt the credibility of the suspect s version of eventsInconsistency in plaintiff account of events and stipulations d oneness . For sheath , the defendant calls to have mentioned of selling the aircraft entirely after revaluation by the stealer , which was not mentioned on eBay website5 . The defendant argued at that 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 manage the traditionalistic auction . flake , amongst the defendant and plaintiff had written 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 on-line auctionThere is human operator in traditional auction , auction serves as vendor s agent , and the seller can pull in 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 seem of won message on buyer s screen9 . why did Rein A J swear an for specific performance of the stipulation appropriate in this caseNature of the stipulation , th! e good was of high attribute , vintage and an unusual breaker point in the auction10 .

wherefore 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 other countryPart B1 . Has tom reached an agreement gobbler and Dick did not have a contract regarding sales event of motor troll . They had just discussed over the matter odd failed to agree on final price tom insisted on selling sit for AU 5000 , whereas the la ter insisted could only put on character with AU 4500 . Tom thus has no claim on the motor cycle even after rearing his bid by 500 , to AU 4500 . In profit Tom had not expressed opinion that he would be re analyseing 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 some other 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: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper