Q1. Explain the below given case study belongs to which category the offer belongs to comment?

Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corporation Ltd [1979] 1 All ER 965 (Court of Appeal)

On 23 May 1969 the claimants offered to sell a machine for 75 553, delivery to be made within ten months. The offer was made on the claimants' terms and conditions, which stated that these terms and conditions were to prevail over any terms and conditions in the buyer's order. One of the claimants' terms allowed for an increase in the contract price if the price of manufacture should increase before the date for delivery. On 27 May the defendants ordered a machine, saying that the order was made on their terms and conditions. These terms and conditions differed from the claimants' terms and conditions, and did not include a price variation clause. At the foot of the order was a tear-off slip which stated, We accept your order on the Terms and Conditions stated thereon'. On 5 June the claimants signed the slip and sent it back to the defendants, adding that the order 'is being entered in accordadce with our revised quotation of 23rd May'. The machine was delivered, but the claimants then claimed an extra 2 892 under their price variation clause.

Q2. Examine the below given case study give the solution and comments.

Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463 (Court of Appeal)

On Wednesday 10 June the defendant delivered a written offer to sell a house and outbuildings to the claimant. The offer stated that, 'This offer to be left over until Friday, 9 o'clock a.m. June 12, 1874.' On Thursday the defendant negotiated to sell the house to one Allan. One Berry found out about the negotiated sale and told the claimant. At 7 am on Friday morning Berry, acting as the claimant's agent, handed the defendant a letter of acceptance and explained its effect to him. The defendant had sold the house to Allan on the Thursday.

Q3. Examine the below given case study give the solution and comments.

(Re Moore & Co and Landauer & Co (1921) (Court of Appeal)

A consignment of 3,100 tins of peaches was sold. The goods were to be shipped from Australia to a buyer in London. The buyer rejected the consignment on the grounds that whereas the peaches had been described as packed 30 tins to a case, about half of the tins were packed 24 to a case instead of 30. The correct number of tins were delivered.

Q4. Examine the below given case study give the solution and comments.

Underwood Ltd v Burgh Castle Brick and Cement Syndicate (1922) (Court of Appeal)

On 20 February a 30-ton engine was sold. The contract obliged the seller to detach the engine from a concrete casing and to put it on a train. (This would take over two weeks.) While the engine was being loaded on the train it became damaged.