A binding contract was formed between Robert and Cassandra at the trade show, but Cassandra is not required to accept the toy cars and pay for them due to Robert's breaches of contract and the product's non-compliance with safety standards.

Cassandra has grounds to avoid performing her part of the agreement, and she may seek remedies for Robert's failures, such as rescission of the contract and damages for any losses incurred.

Explanation:

Detailed explanation:

Answer 1.

Formation of a Binding Contract:

a. Offer: Robert's display of the remote-control toy cars at the trade show constitutes an invitation to treat, inviting potential buyers like Cassandra to make an offer to purchase.

b. Acceptance: When Cassandra expresses interest in purchasing the toy cars and proposes a price of $30 each for a bulk order of 500 cars, she makes a counter-offer. Robert's agreement to sell the toy cars at $30 each for a bulk order of 500 cars constitutes acceptance of Cassandra's counter-offer.

c. Consideration: Consideration exists in the form of the promise to pay $30 per toy car and the promise to deliver the toy cars within 3 weeks.

d. Intention to Create Legal Relations: Both parties intend for their agreement to be legally binding, as evidenced by their negotiation and the signing of the sales order.

e. Capacity: Both parties are assumed to have the legal capacity to enter into a contract.

f. Certainty of Terms: The terms of the contract, including the price, quantity, and delivery time, are sufficiently certain to form a binding agreement.

Based on these steps of contract formation, a binding contract was formed between Robert and Cassandra at the trade show.

Answer 2.

Cassandra's Obligation to Accept and Pay for the Toy Cars:

a. Non-Delivery: The strike at the manufacturer's toy factory delayed the delivery of the toy cars, and only 300 cars were delivered instead of the agreed-upon 500. This constitutes a breach of contract by Robert, as he failed to fulfill his obligation to deliver the agreed quantity of toy cars within the specified time frame.

b. Product Safety: Cassandra's discovery that the toy cars are banned by Product Safety Australia due to high lead content renders the toy cars unfit for sale and poses a risk to children. This constitutes a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, as the toy cars do not comply with applicable safety standards.

c. Grounds for Avoidance: Cassandra has grounds to avoid performing her part of the agreement due to Robert's breaches of contract and the product's non-compliance with safety standards. She can argue that the contract is voidable due to Robert's failure to deliver the agreed quantity of toy cars and the presence of a fundamental defect in the product.

Cassandra is not required to accept the toy cars and pay for them under contract law because of Robert's breaches of contract and the product's non-compliance with safety standards. She has grounds to avoid performing her part of the agreement and can seek remedies for Robert's breaches, such as rescission of the contract and damages for any losses incurred.

Could you give me some similar cases or legal principles that may support this case? Thank you