Question 1

1. You go into your local bakery, The Bread Pit, and see a wonderful chocolate cake in fact the shop is renowned for this cake. It is the last one in the display fridge and you really want it. You have a date tonight that you want to impress, and you know from their Instagram feed that they LOVE this cake.

   You rush to the display fridge, take out the cake and go to the counter announcing loudly Ill take the last chocolate cake! Unfortunately, the sales assistant refuses to sell it, saying that cake was promised to another customer.

   Desperate to impress your date, can you insist do you have the agreement necessary to form a contract? Choose the option with the best reasoning.

   		Yes, because while goods on display are not normally an offer, this cake is perishable and so can be considered an offer that you accept.
   		Yes, because the goods on display are an offer and you accept the offer.
   		No, because the goods on display are an invitation to treat and you are offering to buy them.
   		No, because the goods on display are an advertisement and you are offering to buy them.

Bryan goes into his local barbershop British Hairways looking for a specific style a tight fade haircut. Can you do a tight fade? Bryan asks.

Sure can, says the owner.

How much? asks Bryan

$10 says the owner.

Great Ill take the haircut, says Bryan.

In this scenario, which of the following statements is true?

		Bryan is the offeror, offering to buy a haircut.
		The owner is the offeror, offering to sell a haircut.
		There is no offer because it is an invitation to treat.
		There is no offer because there is only negotiation.

1. John owns the store Byte-me Computers and is standing at the back of the store when a customer, Julie, enters. A new employee has put a price label of $210.00 on a computer instead of $2,100.00. Julie sees the computer and takes it (with the price label) up to the cash register. The new employee takes her money and rings up the sale for $210.

   John, on the other side of the store, sees the transaction including the price on cash register display. He rushes over as the employee hands the receipt and change to Julie.

   Im sorry, he says, we cant sell you the computer for that price.

   At this point, which of the following statements is MOST likely to be correct:

   		There is a simple apparent contract because all essential elements are met.
   		There is no contract because there is no agreement or true meeting of minds yet particularly around the price.
   		There is no contract because the obviously low price means there is insufficient consideration.
   		There is no contract because Johns behaviour indicates he did not intend to be legally bound.

You are visiting your local footwear store, Sole Mates to buy a pair of sneakers. The salesperson comes over and says, I can see you are interested in the Pike shoes. How about I reduce their price by 10%?

I dont know if I should, you reply. I already have so many shoes.

Well, says the salesperson, I can reduce the shoes by 30%. But tell you what why dont you go home and think about it. Heres our business card with the phone number of the store. We have your address in our customer records. If I dont hear from you by Friday, then Ill take it you are buying the shoes at that price. Ill ship them to your address with the bill.

You leave the store. It is now Saturday morning do you have a contract?

		Yes, because the salesperson provided the business card as a method of contacting the store.
		Yes, because the acceptance conditions were very clearly spelt out by the offeror.
		No, because you did not intend to be legally bound by the offer.
		No, because the offeror cannot insist that silence is acceptance.

Three friends, Luke, Joshua and Hollie take turns buying a weekly Scratch-It for the group. One week, Luke buys the ticket and they win the $250,000 prize. Luke is now refusing to pay Joshua and Hollie their share.

In this case, does Luke owe a share to his friends?

		No, because social or domestic relationships dont normally involve an intention to be legally binding.
		Yes, because the social or domestic relationship presumption is rebutted because the circumstances here are so serious.
		Yes, because the consideration of having bought tickets in the past means that Joshua and Hollie are entitled to a share.
		No, because Joshua and Hollie have provided no consideration.