commercial law - Assessment 1

NAME : xxxxxxxxxxx

DEGREE : xxxxxxxxxxxx

SUPERVISOR : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TITLE : Commercial Law - Assessment 1

STUDENT No

Part A

1 . In what court was the case heard

New South Wales Supreme Court , Equity Division

2 . Name the judge and explain his title

Judge Rein A . J

3 . Name the plaintiff and defendant and counsel representing them

Peter Smythe (Plaintiff

B . Kasep (Plaintiff 's Counsel

Vincent Thomas (Defendant

D . M . Loewenstein (Defendant Counsel

4 . What particular circumstances led Rein AJ to doubt the credibility of the defendant 's version

of events

Inconsistency in plaintiff ' account of events and agreements done . For instance , the defendant claims to have mentioned of selling the aircraft only after inspection by the buyer , which was not mentioned on eBay website

5 . The defendant argued there was no binding and enforceable agreement what were the components of the defendant 's argument

First , the defendant claimed that eBay was did not work like the traditional auction . Second , between the defendant and plaintiff had written agreements on the aircraft purchase

6 . How is agreement reached in a traditional auction

Highest bidder agrees to buy the auctioned good at fall of the hammer

7 . What differences did Rein A J outline between a traditional auction and an on-line auction

There is human agent in traditional auction , auctioneer serves as seller 's agent , and the seller can withdraw a good from the auction anytime before fall of the hammer

8 . What did Rein A J regard in an eBay auction as the equivalent of the fall of the hammer in a traditional auction and what is the significance of each

Close of bid session and the appearing of won ' message on buyer 's screen

9 . Why did Rein A J believe an for specific performance of the contract appropriate in this case

Nature of the bargain , the good was of high quality , vintage and an unusual item in the auction

10 . Why was the final not made in this hearing

More deliberations with both sides counsel

11 . Why was the matter heard in the Supreme Court

Complexity of the case - defendants and plaintiff were from different regions (court jurisdictions ) and the auctioneer (eBay ) from another country

Part B

1 . Has Tom reached an agreement

Tom and Dick did not have a contract regarding sale of motor cycle . They had just discussed over the matter but failed to agree on final price Tom insisted on selling sit for AU 5000 , whereas the later insisted could only part with AU 4500 . Tom thus has no claim on the motor cycle even after raising his bid by 500 , to AU 4500 . In addition Tom had not expressed opinion that he would be reconsidering 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 another one from any other interested party . In this regard , Dave is free to sell his motor cycle to another individual (Theodore 2006...