.
Model
Model answer
Here is a model answer to the contract law question. Look at how the legal issues (blue text) are woven into the facts (yellow text) of the case with the case citations (red text).
Kate's advertisement is an invitation to treat. An ad. can be an offer: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball, but is more likely to be an invitation to treat: Partridge v Crittenden. Although not exactly business, there is no reason to doubt intention to create legal relations.
James' first letter is an offer, a definite promise to take the piano at her price. (Cp Harvey v Facey: mere response to a request for information as to the price).
Kate's reply is a counter offer, rejecting James' offer (Hyde v Wrench). There is no requirement for her to hold it open for a week as there is no consideration provided by James, so it is not an option (Goldsborough Mort v Quinn). However, if she wishes to revoke the offer, the revocation must be communicated before James has accepted (Dickinson v Dodds).
Because the offer was made by post, and no method of acceptance prescribed, postal acceptance is appropriate: Adams v Lindsell. Acceptance is complete upon posting. Assuming James posted the letter on the 4th of May, a contract is formed on that date.
Kate, therefore, breaches that contract by selling the piano to Julie on 5th May. Her agreement with Julie may not be legally binding as it is a family arrangement, though that presumption can be overcome (Wakeling v Ripley). It may also be too vague to be enforceable: for how many Saturday nights must Julie mind Kate's children?
Here is a model answer to the contract law question. Look at how the legal issues are woven into the facts of the case with the case citations.
[fact: Kate's advertisement] [legal issue: is an invitation to treat. An ad. can be an offer:] [citations: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball], [legal issue: but is more likely to be an invitation to treat: [citations: Partridge v Crittenden]. [fact: Although not exactly business,] [legal issue: there is no reason to doubt intention to create legal relations.]
[fact: James' first letter is an offer,] [legal issue: a definite promise to] [fact: take the piano at her price.] [citations: (Cp Harvey v Facey:] [legal issue: mere response to a request for information as to the price).]
[fact: Kate's reply] [legal issues: is a counter offer,] [fact: rejecting James' offer] [citation: (Hyde v Wrench).] [fact: There is no requirement for her to hold it open for a week] [legal issue: as there is no consideration] [fact: provided by James,] [legal issue: so it is not an option] [citation: (Goldsborough Mort v Quinn).] [legal issues: However, if she wishes to revoke the offer, the revocation must be communicated] [fact: before James has accepted] [citation: (Dickinson v Dodds).]
[fact: Because the offer was made by post, and no method of acceptance prescribed,] [legal issues: postal acceptance is appropriate:] [citation: Adams v Lindsell.] [legal issue: Acceptance is complete upon posting.] [fact: Assuming James posted the letter on the 4th of May,] [legal issue: a contract is formed on that date.]
[fact: Kate, therefore,] [legal issue: breaches that contract] [fact: by selling the piano to Julie on 5th May. Her agreement with Julie may not be legally binding] [legal issue: as it is a family arrangement, though that presumption can be overcome] [citation: (Wakeling v Ripley).] [legal issue: It may also be too vague to be enforceable:] [fact: for how many Saturday nights must Julie mind Kate's children?]