38.a Marcel, due to health problems, announced that he was selling his electronic equipment business. Paul, knowing Marcel's business activities, sent him an offer to purchase for $ 450,000, of which $ 75,000 payable immediately, with the balance payable in installments over the next two years. Marcel immediately emailed Paul stating, The price and all other terms seem fair, except I need a larger first payment - say $ 125,000. Tell me how much you can increase the first installment. Paul replied that he couldn't increase the first payment. Marcel replied the next day that he had decided to accept the offer given his health. In the meantime, Paul learned that the business had lost value due to Marcel's health, and he refused to make the purchase. He alleged that since Marcel refused his offer, there was no agreement. Is Paul right?

A) No, Paul is not right. Marcel accepted the offer so there is indeed a contract.

B) No, Paul is not right, because when an offer is made and the recipient of the offer decides to change only certain particulars, he has not accepted it. So there is a contract.

C) Yes, Paul is right, Marcel did not accept the offer but made a counter-offer. Paul not having accepted the counter-offer, there is no contract.

D) Paul is wrong and in bad faith. The acceptance of the recipient of the offer is irrevocable. There is a contract.

E) Paul is wrong, acceptance binds the offeror to the recipient of the offer. The contract thus formed is binding.

38.b. We cannot be obligated to people who work for us without our knowledge. Why?

A) Because working without someone's knowledge is nothing less than fraud.

B) Because volunteering does not create any legal obligation.

C) Because everyone is free to work for free.

D) Because the offer binds only the offeror and not the recipient of the offer.

E) Because we have the right to receive in advance an offer to perform the work that we can accept or refuse.

38.c. What is an implied stipulation?

A) It is a stipulation which the parties expressly included in their contract, but which in the opinion of the court, they should not have included as reasonable persons if they had thought of the possibility of a subsequent difficulty.

B) It is a stipulation in the contract which warns the parties against the intervention of the court if the contract does not expressly deal with a serious circumstance which affects the basis of the transaction.

C) It is a stipulation which the parties have implicitly and expressly included in their contract, but which in the opinion of the court, they should not have included as reasonable persons if they had thought of the possibility of a difficulty subsequent. D) It is a stipulation in the contract which gives the parties assurance that the court will not allow their legitimate and reasonable expectations to be disappointed simply because the contract does not expressly deal with a serious circumstance which affects the basis of the contract. 'surgery.

E) It is a stipulation which the parties did not expressly include in their contract, but which in the court's opinion they would have included as reasonable persons if they had thought of the possibility of a subsequent difficulty.

38.d. A residential lease of at least one year concluded orally is enforceable and binds the parties:

A) true, a lease of at least one year is a standard contract which is binding on the parties.

B) true, like all contracts, the lease of at least one year can be concluded orally.

C) true, a lease of at least one year is a consumer contract that can be concluded orally.

D) False, the lease of at least one year must absolutely be concluded in writing under penalty of nullity.

E) False, the lease of at least one year is a pre-executed consideration which cannot be imposed on the parties.