I need you to answer 3 discussion post questions from my peers and state whether you agree or disagree:

1.

Based on the scenario described, there was a valid contract between Murray and the store to purchase the Celtic Stein. Murray examined the item, agreed to the clerk's offered price of five dollars, and paid for the item. This constitutes a valid offer, acceptance, and consideration, which are the essential elements of a contract. A contract is a voluntary exchange of promises creating obligations that, if defaulted on, can be enforced and remedied in the courts. Yates et al.(2013)

Assuming there was no misrepresentation or fraud involved, the store owner does not have any claim to part of Murray's new fortune. Once Murray purchased the stein, he became the legal owner and had the right to sell it as he saw fit.

The possibility that the Colorado collector would be unable to keep the stein would depend on the circumstances of the sale. For example, if there was some defect in the title or provenance of the item, then the sale might be voided or rescinded, and the collector might be entitled to a refund. However, based on the information provided, there is no indication of any issues with the sale, so the collector would likely be able to keep the stein.

2.

As we learned in Unit 4, for a contract to be formed, some elements must be present: offer, acceptance, and consideration. When the teenage summer clerk charged $5 for the Celtic stein, and Murray accept the offer by paying the price, a valid contract was built. According to the book Business Law in Canada It is important to understand that when agreeing to the terms of a contract, people are creating and defining their own rules and obligations (Yates, Bereznicki-Korol, Clarke, & Palmer, 2021).

In the scenario described in this mini-case III, it can be considered that there was a mistake in the transaction between Murray and the store. According to a publication in The Cambridge Law Journal (Wade, 1941), a mistake, in contract law, refers to an incorrect belief or understanding by one or both parties regarding a fundamental aspect of the contract. The mistake can be unilateral (error by one of the parties) or mutual (error by both parties). In this case, the mistake would be unilateral, as the summer clerk, who seemed disinterested, sold the product for a very low price, which makes it clear that he had no idea of the true value of the Celtic stein.

However, the owner of the store delegated to the summer clerk the authority to sell the items in his business. The summer clerk was acting as the agent of the owner of the store, and according to Yates, Bereznicki-Korol, Clarke, and Palmer (2021), when an agent acts on behalf of a principal in contracting with a third party, the actions of that agent are binding on the principal. That is why it seems improbable that the store owner would have a legitimate legal claim to a portion of Murray's new fortune. Any claim he would have, regarding the selling of the stein at an undervalued price, would probably be made against the summer clerk rather than Murray or his new fortune.

Peoples Jewellers Limited v. Vincent (1983) is an example of a unilateral mistake. In this case law, Vincent bought a watch for $900 and the product was worth more than $9,000. The saleslady said she checked the price on the box where the product was. The customer said he would have asked if the price was correct, and after checking the price with her manager, she sold the product for $900. After the store filed a lawsuit, the client needed to return the product to the store, which needed to leave $11,250 as a security deposit, in case the judge determined that the customer should have the watch back.

About the possibility that the Colorado collector might not be able to keep the stein, that seems unlikely. When Murray sold the Celtic stein to the Colorado collector the buyer has the right of the privity of contract which means only the original parties to the contract are bound (Yates, Bereznicki-Korol, Clarke, & Palmer, 2021). Therefore, only Murray and the Colorado collector himself could try to somehow terminate the contract. For example, if the mug has a legal issue or defect that Murray did not disclose during the online auction, the collector would have reason to terminate the contract or seek compensation. However, based on the information provided in this mini-case III, there are no indications that such problems exist, so it is improbable that the Colorado collector could not keep the mug.

3.

In this case there is a valid contract between Murray and the store. The antique store had an item available and sold it for only $5.00. The store clerk made and arrangement to sell the item for a price, and the offer was accepted by Mr. Murray.

The owner of the store would not have a claim to part of Murrays profits. The owner of the store made a one-sided mistake when he did not properly price his stores inventory accordingly. He should have done his due diligence and researched, in an effort to properly price his merchandise instead of allowing his teenaged employee to make decision on pricing. In this case, its an error in judgment and the courts would not set aside the contract due to bad bargaining (Yates et al, 2020). The person that was on the unfavorable side of the deal would have to live with it (Yates et al, 2020).

There is no reason that the Colorado collector would not be able to keep the stein. As there was no illegal activity that occurred before he purchased it. For example, Murray did not steal the stein from the antique store, it was purchased.