HTOTM: FUSION
Original Post
Win a free Demon Pack
Hi! Celebrating that I ranked 5th/542 in my first semester of law school this year I decided to do a trivia to give away my Non QI Demon Pack - sort of - to the first person who successfully solves the following 5 cases. These cases require critical thinking and analyzing to be able to find out the valid answer and the reasoning behind it. I wrote them starting from the easiest to the hardest. So good luck!


Case No.1



Case No.2



Case No.3



Case No.4



Case No.5




These cases are not impossible to solve. So grab a cup of tea and take your time reading slowly and you'll arrive at the best reasonable explanations. You can post more than once.


Deadline is April 14th.
the world is as beautiful as what you make it out to be
Case 1 is guilty. This is premeditated murder. Not only does the suspect admit to both murders he also stated that he planned it for a while.

Case 2 no. Bids on cars are usually non-binding as per eBay's terms and conditions. He shouldn't be legally obligated to fulfill his end of the bargain.

Case 3. No. The contract is void if the buyer isn't getting what he agreed to buy.

Case 4 No. If I'm assessing this properly he shouldn't be legally binded to the company in the US. They had already rejected his offer and this is a pretty shady business practice from the owner to send the acception letter before the rejection letter.

Case 5 yes. In most cases the seller can pull out of a house sale for any reason but there was a written agreement and now the seller is legally obligated to fulfill their end of the deal regardless if there were spelling mistakes. In this case, the spelling mistake didnt alter the contract in any way. If Alexander was so drunk that he had no idea what he was doing then the contract would have been void but it seems like he knew exactly what he was doing and even had his wife sign the contract.
Last edited by skizz; Mar 24, 2022 at 04:01 AM.
1 ) Not Guilty. Although motive and planning is admitted but he never actually says "i did it" So I'd say it sounds like he hired someone to do it rather than did it himself, although he doesn't admit that either. There'd need to be a lot of work done to actually get a guilty verdict, and I'd consider it impossible to get one just from the listed conversation.

2 ) No. what Skrr says still stands afaik

3 ) No. i remember this story from years ago lol. I agree with Skrr here as well.

4 ) No. Since there was no contract signed.
- just a letter offering services from Alexander to Company X, and two letters from said Company X saying No, and then Yes. (Although the order of letters arriving is reversed from the sent order) So I don't think Company X would have a case in court, since no contract is stated as specifically agreed upon and signed in your example.
Accepting demands doesn't also infer agreement of contractual terms.

5) I'd say Yes here. Being drunk doesn't specifically mean "too impaired to make a contract" and it's clear that the rewrite of the contract occurred, and the partner signed as well. So clearly both parties are sober enough to recognize a rewrite of the contract as a 'good idea' and a third person signed it.
Last edited by Icky; Mar 24, 2022 at 05:18 AM.
Addicted-re 07-16



24/07/2019. I'll find you again my friend.

"I like to visualise icky in the astral realm fighting off the spambots (alien-robot hybrid species) singlehandedly and trying to scan their brains to find out which evil mastermind is sending them" ~ rola
Case #1 - Not guilty. As much as this sounds like premeditated murder, the accused has not mentioned how they died or what he killed them with. No evidences mentioned which directly connects the accused to the victims; one of the victims so happened to kill the wife of the accused, so emotional and mental instability is plausible (which can be backed up in the statements of the accused - just because you thought of murdering someone does not mean you will/did commit to it.)

Case #2 - Not a binding contract. eBay's bid policy mentions real estates and motor vehicles as a part of "non-binding." Therefore, it is a non-binding contract.

Case #3 - Not obligated, non-binding contract. The definition of a binding contract is an agreement by both sides and is legally obligated to be fulfilled ONLY when the offers are the same as when confirmed - in this case, the agreement was a Toyota Prius XW20 for $10K. The seller came with a toy Yoda instead of the agreed Prius, and since there hasn't been any contracts signed or legal agreement, no need to fulfill your end of the deal and you can pull out any time - even if the Prius was offered on the scene.

Case #4 - No, no contract exists. The US company owner was being vocal in the phone call about not accepting the offer (7th of June), and Alexander got the express-mail of acceptance on the 10th. Despite not opening it, it was evident from the past alteration that the US company owner did not want to accept the offer. Since he hasn't heard of him for nearly 3 days, chances are Alexander already looked for other companies, which in this case is the Japanese company, already accepting it. There hasn't been a two-way agreement or any direct confirmation that Alexander accepts working for the US company. Therefore, no legal contract exists.

Case #5 - Yes, it's a valid written contract. Whether or not the $5 was used to confirm the deal, how drunk the parties are or what the waitress heard, a written agreement exists no matter what. If verbal testimonials matters, then they could've used Alexander's earlier deal on December 21st 1953 against him - which obviously isn't how the court of law would work. Legally speaking, George is obligated to purchase the house and Alexander has to oblige.
1) Guilty, he answered "yes" and continued saying that he planned the whole thing when he was asked if he murdered the people

2) No, it isn't a binding contract according to eBay's terms and conditions.


3) No, the Yoda toy wasn't the item that was agreed upon


4) No, there was no contract signed by both parties stating that Alexander accepted to work for the company in the US


5) No, there is no valid contract. Since George and Alexander had conflicting ideas, they probably made the waitress testify and see if there was a verbal agreement... and based on what she said ("I heard Alexander say he did not intend to sell the house, and that both Alexander and George looked drunk."), there is no valid agreement


Do I get a bonus point for saying congratulations?
(Just kidding, 5 out of 542 is pretty huge... keep up the good work)

<font face=&quot>https://imgur.com/iq1bSjp</font>
Toribash Season 1 Rank 3 | Ex-ES Artist | Ex-Mascot of [Alpha]
CLAN LEAGUE 2019 WINNER
Karstnator: Thank you!

Interesting answers but yet none of you have successfully solved the five cases
Last edited by Bibian; Mar 24, 2022 at 07:15 PM.
the world is as beautiful as what you make it out to be
Thinking about it, seems like case #5 is going to be a no due to the waitress confirming that the party involved was intoxicated on the time of the second written draft.
Agreements usually are required to be fulfilled, but can be voided if one of the parties involved stated that they were intoxicated, and in this case the witness (despite being busy with work) stated that they were drunk, therefore invalidating their written contract. Or at least that's what I got from it?
Case 1-4 answers stay the same.
Side note: I enjoy similar puzzles like this, if you got more do notify me.
whoops! i think case #4 is actually a yes. since alexander sent the company owner a signed letter saying that he will work for the company for $100,000 annually for 2 years it is a binding contract. The owner having a change of heart doesn't matter since in Alexander's perspective he didn't even get rejected yet and got the express letter beforehand. My answers for the rest stay the same.
Last edited by skizz; Mar 24, 2022 at 08:51 PM.
Nice job at school! Keep it up dude!

1. Guilty, I think this mostly depends on the word "arrange". You could argue that "arrange" isn't a strong enough word, that it doesn't necessarily imply that the accused did anything outside of his imagination, but in this context I guess it's good enough. At the very least, you definitely can't say the accused is not guilty. Surely we would need more information for that. And I believe it doesn't matter if he committed the crime with his own hands or not; when you pay someone else to commit murder, both the murderer and the payer are charged

2. Non-binding, I just looked it up to confirm with the other guys that bids for cars on ebay are always non-binding

3. Non-binding, either there is clear deception from the seller, or there is a mutual mistake between the buyer and the seller over what exactly is being sold

4. Yes, Alex has to work for the US company because he received the acceptance letter before the rejection. I don't think it matters if he opened it or not, but it was definitely stupid to not open it right away

5. Yes, this is a valid contract because it doesn't matter if Alexander was joking the entire time, he knew that George was serious and has been serious for years about buying the house, and then he wrote a whole contract, signed it with his wife, and passed it to George.
Last edited by crith; Mar 24, 2022 at 10:10 PM.
Your pal,
crith
We are definitely getting close! but yet not anyone has all five cases answered correctly
the world is as beautiful as what you make it out to be