Question

d. doctrine of precedent e. none of the above Short Answers- Answer each question below with regard to the number of points assigned to the question, 1. Short Answer (15 points) Facts Susan is a 30 year-old farmer, from Bragg Creek, Alberta which is located approximately 30 km from Jumping Pound, Alberta. Susan owned four productive milk cows that she wished to sell for $800.00 each. George, her neighbor, had been looking at the cows for a few weeks but he wanted to consider others before he made a decision. Susan saw George walking down the road and stopped to talk with him. In that conversation, Susan offered to sell George the cows for $600.00 each, if he would take all four cows. George still wanted to think about this so Susan told him she would leave the offer open to him for four days and that he could e-mail his acceptance. Two days later, Susan received an offer via phone from Tony to buy all four cows for $900.00 each on the condition that they were delivered to his farm at Jumping Pound at Susan's cost. Susan accepted the offer immediately on the phone. She phoned George later that day and advised him that she has accepted another offer. George is enraged since Susan ha offered to keep the offer open to him for four days. Unbeknownst to Susan, Tony's farm was located in Jumping Pound, Manitoba not Jumping Pound, Alberta. Susan accepted Tony's offer believing the delivery cost to be about $100.00 per cow to Jumping Pound, Alberta when in the shipping cost to Jumping Pound, Manitoba was $900.00 per cow Questions: 1. Do you believe that George has any legal remedy against Susan for failing to sell him the cows? why using legal principles from this course. (5 marks)

Answer 1

A firm offer is an offer that remains valid and open to the offeree for a certain period of time (period generally decided by the offeror). The offeree may accept or deny the offer within that period. The firm offer cannot be revoked by the offeror during the stipulated time. The offer contained a time window within which the offer may be accepted or rejected (or a counteroffer be made) by the offeree. This is called a 'firm offer'. Under section 2-205 of the UCC (Uniform Civil Code) a firm offer is created when the merchant offers to sell his product to the buyer in signed writing and provides assurance that the offer will remain open for a specific time. This is called merchant's firm offer. For a valid firm offer, the offer must be signed and in writing. It is not necessary for a consideration to be paid during the stated period. However, in this case, there was no offer made in writing and signed by the offeror, Susan to sell her cows for $ 600 each to George if he is willing to buy all her four cows. As George needed some time to think about the offer, Susan gave him four days to e-mail her the confirmation and she would keep the offer open till that time. Susan called George after two days to inform him that she has accepted another offer to sell her cow and the offer made between them stand revoked. Therefore, it can be easily seen that the offer, which was made by the Susan clearly fails to meet the requirement of the UCC (section 2-205). The offer was not made in writing and not signed. Hence, George cannot claim any remedies under the UCC. However, George can still make Susan liable for revoking the offer before the stipulate period under promissory estoppel.

Promissory estoppel refers to the doctrine that states that a promise made by the promisor to the promisee is binding even though there is no written contract and the promisor should reasonably expect the promisee to fulfill the promise. The non-fulfillment of the promise will result in the injustice to the promise. Therefore, in a promissory estoppel claim, a plaintiff must show all the four elements to win the case: 1. Promise. 2. Fulfillment or dependence on the promise. 3. Injury caused due to the dependence. 4. Non-fulfillment of promise will cause injustice. Hence, George has a legal basis to seek for damages or specific performance from Susan under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Susan promised George to keep the offer open for four days – the oral agreement made between them. George relied on the promise made by Susan, the offeror. The reliance on the promise may cause or have caused George the injury. Moreover, non-fulfilment will cause injustice to the offeree, as it is against the good faith principle.