Case study Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Case Study Example Question 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 (2 marks) The fall of the hammer in a traditional auction is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of the hammer or in other customary manner-and until any such announcement is made any bidder may retract his or her bid. The equivalent of the fall of the hammer in an eBay auction is the automatic close of bidding at a fixed time and the generation of an eBay advice headed "won" appear to have been accepted by the parties to an eBay auction. Question 9: Why was an order for specific performance of the contract appropriate in this case (2 marks) An order for specific performance of the contract was appropriate because of two reasons: 1) the Wirraway was not at the time in flying condition, and 2) the plane was in a hangar owned by a third party. Question 10: Why was the final order not made in this hearing (1 mark) It was ruled that a binding contract was formed between the plaintiff3 and the defendant4 and that it should be specifically enforced.5 Further, the two parties would be given a chance to reach agreement on the precise nature of the agreement. Question 11: Why was the matter heard in the Supreme Court (4 marks) This matter was heard in the Supreme Court because the defendant kept appealing to higher courts when the decisions in lower courts were against him (i.e., not in his favour). TOTAL 30 Marks Course Profile for: LAWS11030, 2009 Term Two - Page 7 Part B McMuffins Ltd is a fast food company. Yesterday, before work had started, an argument arose between three kitchen hands: Tom, Dick and Harry. Over the weekend, Tom had offered to sell his... An order for specific performance of the contract was appropriate because of two reasons: 1) the Wirraway was not at the time in flying condition, and 2) the plane was in a hangar owned by a third party. It was ruled that a binding contract was formed between the plaintiff3 and the defendant4 and that it should be specifically enforced.5 Further, the two parties would be given a chance to reach agreement on the precise nature of the agreement. McMuffins Ltd is a fast food company. Yesterday, before work had started, an argument arose between three kitchen hands: Tom, Dick and Harry. Over the weekend, Tom had offered to sell his motorbike to Dick for $5000. Dick said this was far too much but he would pay $4000. Tom refused. Before Tom left for work this morning Dick phoned to say he would buy the motorbike for $5000 but Tom said he had already sold it to Harry for $4,500. It was not a good day for Dick: he was one of the six employees of McMuffins Ltd that