your on the money there with the unilateral mistake, I forgot a unilateral mistake isnt always about the identity - and as it came up last year I didnt pay as much attention to it as it deserved. I said it was a mutual mistake knew I was wrong so missed that bit webster v cecil was the rabbit skins was'nt it? the Thai computer printer case Xao something v Youn ping i think it was - case now that was identical!!
On Oct 10, 8:36 pm, aviationhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would agree with all but the common mistake bit. I would say that > the mistake was only on the part of the Airline, therefore it was > Unilateral. > > However as the other party should reasonably have been aware that a > mistake was present, going on Webster v. Cecil (facts identical to the > Airline offer) and Hartog v. Colin and Shields, > the contract should be void due to unilateral mistake. I would agree > the damages for the hotel bill should be Reliance. > > On Oct 10, 8:10 pm, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > hi, ya Q.1 I'm weary of posting this but anywhooo > > > I took it as > > ads - invtation to treat or unilateral offer/said it was Uni definite > > clear etc. > > revocation of a unilateral offer once acceptance has begun old cases > > say poss to revoke new says its not Errington v E > > e-commerce 'grey area' > > Damages - reliance > > It was as per a Thai manufacturer case on computer printers which was > > exactly as in the question - void for common mistake > > > One thing not sure on - they both made the same mistake so its a > > common mistake? > > > On Oct 10, 7:59 pm, aviationhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Just to clarify something...I take it that you are referring to Q1 > > > when you say 'offer and acceptance'? > > > > While I looked in a general way at the rules re the creation of E- > > > Contracts, I spent most of my time > > > in this question looking at the Unilateral Mistake of the Airline and > > > the Reliance Damages that could be sought > > > in booking the hotel. > > > > So what was the main issue in that question then? Offer and Acceptance > > > or Mistake and Damages? or a combination of both!! > > > > On Oct 10, 7:50 pm, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I usually avoid post-mortmes but fyi I passed contract last April and > > > > felt this was a harder paper but nothing crazy the mix of ITCRL and > > > > the estoppel was a bit random, did 5 Ok questions Offer and Acceptance > > > > was a grand question, I did the one about the Model UI, Capacity and > > > > Statute in 20 mins so not sure on that one at all. > > > > > On Oct 10, 5:48 pm, Perdy22 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > To those that sat contract what did ye think of the paper? > > > > > I sat it last year and there was a big difference in the standard of > > > > > the questions. I didn't like the way illegality and discharge came up. > > > > > I was able to get 5 qs alright but I found myself having three good > > > > > enough qs, 1 alright and 1 ok. Does anybody have any ideas on how one > > > > > could pass with this ?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
