Q1: Suppose that the following sequence of events transpired in the case Byrne [B] v Tienhoven

[T](this data preempts that contained in the original case: Date of EventEvent Description

October 1T posts offer letter in Cardiff offering to sell 1000 boxes of widgets

October 8T posts letter of revocation

October 11T's Offer letter received in New York by B, who immediately telegrams acceptance

October 13T's Letter of Revocation received by B in New York

October 15Acceptance letter posted by B from NewYork

October 18T sold goods to a third party

October 20B's acceptance letter is received by T in Cardiff

[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.

Q2: 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 OrderEvent Description

October 1T posts offer letter in Cardiff offering to sell 1000 boxes of widgets

requiring acceptance "by notice in writing"

October 8T posts letter of revocation

October 11T's Offer letter received in New York by B, who immediately telegrams acceptance

October 13T's Letter of Revocation received by B in New York

October 15Offer letter posted by B from New York

October 18T sold goods to a third party

October 20B's acceptance letter is received by T in Cardiff

[a] Is Postal Rule#1 to be applied in this case? How do you know?

[b] At what date, if any, would a contract formed between B & T? If so, on what date, if any, would breach of contract have obtained? Explain.

[c] Does PR#1 trump PR#2 (or vice versa) according to the sequence of events depicted above