[15] Suppose that the following sequence of events transpired in the vase Byrne [B] v Tienhoven [T](this data preempts that contained in the original case: Date of Order October 1 October 8 October 11 Event Description T posts offer letter in Cardiff offering to sell 1000 boxes of widgits T posts letter of revocation T's Offer letter received in New York by B, who immediately telegrams acceptance T's Letter of Revocation received by B in New York Offer letter posted by B from New York T sold goods to a third party B's acceptance letter is received by Tin Cardiff October 13 October 15 October 18 October 20 [a] Is Postal Rule#1 to be applied in this case? How do you know? (b) At what date, if any, has a contract formed between B & T? Why is this more complicated to determine than in the original facts of the case? Explain? (c) Does PR#1 trump PR#2 (or vice versa) according to the sequence of events depicted above