Question 1

Facts of the Case

Donna had a body slimming machine and Emily also prepared to purchase one for herself. On March 5, Donna orally offered to sell her body slimming machine to Emily for HK$1,000. Donna specified that Emily had until March 15 to accept the offer. On March 6, Donna received an offer to purchase her body slimming machine for HK$1,500 from Fanny, Emily's neighbour. Donna replied that she would like to sell it to Fanny for HK$2,000. Fanny accepted. On March 10, Emily went to Fanny's house and saw Donna's body slimming machine and was told that the body slimming machine had been sold to Fanny. Emily immediately wrote to Donna to accept the March 5 offer.

Case analysis

For the offer of HK$1,000, Donna is the(1)and Emily is the(2).

For the offer of HK$1,500, Donna is the(3)and Fanny is the(4). The amount of HK$2,000 required by Donna is a(5). The offer of HK$(6)was terminated. Fanny has the right to(7)it.

Emily saw Donna's body slimming machine at Fanny's house and was told that the body slimming machine had been sold to Fanny. This amounts to a(8). Emily wrote to Donna to accept the March 5 offer. It is actually regarded as(9). The valid contract concluded is between(10).

Question 2

Facts of the Case

Mandy was a top financial advisor of an investment company. She was invited by AAA Insurance Company to give an investment talk to its potential clients in the following week. The agreed contract price for giving the talk was $15,000, which would be paid within a week after completion of the talk. Tommy, her assistant, agreed to stay late in the office to help her finish the presentation slides.

The investment talk was well-received by the audiences. After Mandy returned from the talk, she promised to pay Tommy HK$1,500 for his additional work in the preparation of the talk. On the other hand, as the talk was so successful and may double the potential business for the insurance company, Mandy thought that the original agreed contract price $15,000 was unfair to her. Therefore, she claimed that AAA Insurance Company should pay her $30,000.

According to Mandy's claim to the insurance companyfor doubled original contract price, Tommy also demanded that Mandy should pay him $3,000 instead of $1,500 as promised by Mandy.

Case analysis

The contract price of $15,000 agreed between Mandy and AAA Insurance Company is a/an(1)consideration which(2) is / is nota valid consideration. The claim made by Mandy to the insurance company for $$30,000(3) is / is notvalid because the consideration must be(4)but it needs not be(5). The amount required to be paid by AAA Insurance Company to Mandy is $(6).

For the original promise of $1,500 made by Mandy to Tommy for his additional work is regarded as a/an(7)consideration which(8) is / is nota valid consideration. Therefore, the amount of $3,000demandedby Tommy(9) can/cannotbe valid and thus Mandy(10) is/is notrequired to pay $3,000 to Tommy.