[makubexho]

> MB is a bank, had a scheme of financing to construct a traffic tunnel.

In the course of construction of the tunnel.

>SBB, a private busline, came to MB and negotiaged for a contract with MB. One of the clauses in the contract saying that "SBB may drive 100 buses in each direction through the tunnel..." , then the contract signed by both parties.

>1 month after the tunnel constructed, SBB buses could only operate 40 bus journeys through the tunnel as a result of traffic congestion.

Then SBB came to you (as a solicitor) and brought up the conplaint and asked for your advise for the case.

What would u advise SBB as to the clause in the contract?

[Auttajasi]

Are you asking us to do our homework for you? Shame, Shame, Shame.

[hepzibah]

> MB is a bank, had a scheme of financing to construct a traffic tunnel.

in the course of construction of the tunnel.

>SBB, a private busline, came to MB and negotiaged for a contract with MB. one of the clauses in the contract saying that "SBB may drive 100 buses in each direction through the tunnel..." , then the contract signed by both parties.

>1 month after the tunnel constructed, SBB buses could only operate 40 bus journeys through the tunnel as a result of traffic congestion.

Then SBB came to you (as a solicitor) and brought up the conplaint and asked for your advise for the case.

what would u advise SBB as to the clause in the contract?

A handshake is a gentlemans agreement and is not actually a written contract.
There could have been a non verbal agreement in the form of a gentlemans agreement that allowed fewer than 100 buses.
Steve

[excon]

"SBB may drive 100 buses in each direction through the tunnel..."

Hello mak:

There's no violation of the contract. The contract uses the word MAY, not MUST.

excon

[arunkp]

Mrs S drives into the entrance of Watson's multi–story car park at 4.55 pm. She takes a ticket from the dispensing machine. This ticket has printed on it a black metallic strip that records the time, and the legend:

“By accepting this ticket the holder is bound by the terms and conditions of the contract.”

Mrs S enters the car-park. On the first floor she finds a large sign which states the terms of the contract. One of these terms is that any car left after 5 pm. Will be charged $50.00 regardless of length of stay. Mrs Smith does not like this idea and attempts to leave the car-park; there is however a line of cars exiting and her departure is delayed by 10 minutes. At the pay kiosk the attendant tries to charge Mrs Smith $50.00 for her stay. Mrs Smith refuses; she claims a contract was not formed.

Could you briefly set out what you would consider Mrs Smith's legal argument for her claim would be under common law? How would Watson's Multi-story Car-park attempt to counter this claim?

[rina vaghela]

You work as a junior clerk for Ikkelbod, Dwyer & Summ, Accountants. The senior partner of the firm, while conducting an Audit has encountered a difficulty. He places the problem on your desk which he has discovered. He requires you to research this problem and give him your opinion of the legal options available to Mrs Smith which he in turn can then advise the client with.

You are required to provide an essay which covers all of the relevant legal issues and researches the relevant legal precedents. Based on this research an indication is made what may be the most advantageous path for the client to take. All relevant legal information must be provided to the client, to enable them to make an informed choice.

Mrs S drives into the entrance of Watson’s multi–story car park at 4.55 pm. She takes a ticket from the dispensing machine. This ticket has printed on it a black metallic strip that records the time, and the legend:

“By accepting this ticket the holder is bound by the terms and conditions of the contract.”

Mrs S enters the car-park. On the first floor she finds a large sign which states the terms of the contract. One of these terms is that any car left after 5 pm. Will be charged $50.00 regardless of length of stay. Mrs Smith does not like this idea and attempts to leave the car-park; there is however a line of cars exiting and her departure is delayed by 10 minutes. At the pay kiosk the attendant tries to charge Mrs Smith $50.00 for her stay. Mrs Smith refuses; she claims a contract was not formed.

Could you set out ( within the required word limit) what you would consider Mrs Smith’s legal argument for her claim would be under common law? How would Watson’s Multi-story Car-park attempt to counter this claim?

[JudyKayTee]

Mrs S drives into the entrance of Watson’s multi–story car park at 4.55 pm. She takes a ticket from the dispensing machine. This ticket has printed on it a black metallic strip that records the time, and the legend:

“By accepting this ticket the holder is bound by the terms and conditions of the contract.”

Mrs S enters the car-park. On the first floor she finds a large sign which states the terms of the contract. One of these terms is that any car left after 5 pm. will be charged $50.00 regardless of length of stay. Mrs Smith does not like this idea and attempts to leave the car-park; there is however a line of cars exiting and her departure is delayed by 10 minutes. At the pay kiosk the attendant tries to charge Mrs Smith $50.00 for her stay. Mrs Smith refuses; she claims a contract was not formed.

Could you briefly set out what you would consider Mrs Smith’s legal argument for her claim would be under common law? How would Watson’s Multi-story Car-park attempt to counter this claim?

First, this should be a new thread.

Second it is the policy of the Board not to do homework.

[JudyKayTee]

Mrs S drives into the entrance of Watson’s multi–story car park at 4.55 pm. She takes a ticket from the dispensing machine. This ticket has printed on it a black metallic strip that records the time, and the legend:

“By accepting this ticket the holder is bound by the terms and conditions of the contract.”

Mrs S enters the car-park. On the first floor she finds a large sign which states the terms of the contract. One of these terms is that any car left after 5 pm. will be charged $50.00 regardless of length of stay. Mrs Smith does not like this idea and attempts to leave the car-park; there is however a line of cars exiting and her departure is delayed by 10 minutes. At the pay kiosk the attendant tries to charge Mrs Smith $50.00 for her stay. Mrs Smith refuses; she claims a contract was not formed.

Could you briefly set out what you would consider Mrs Smith’s legal argument for her claim would be under common law? How would Watson’s Multi-story Car-park attempt to counter this claim?

Looks like Rina Vaghela and OP go to the same school.

Here's a thought - why don't you get together and figure this out - ?