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!
Context:
A conversation between a prosecutor and someone who has been accused of murdering 2 people
Prosecutor: Did you murder Alexander?
Accused: I wanted him dead. He killed my wife.
Prosecutor: George did you murder him as well?
Accused: George deserved to die, they both deserved to die.
Prosecutor: So you arranged both of those murders?
Accused: Yes, I planned it over and over again in my head it took me a long time.
Question:
Guilty or not guilty? Answer with Yes or No and state the reason
Context:
Let's imagine someone staying up one night having some drinks on Christmas night and surfing the internet on eBay, and the next morning he woke up and he received an email in his inbox saying "Congratulations, your bid for $48,000 for the Mercedes is the winning bid."
Question:
Is that a really binding contract? Answer with Yes or No and state the reason
Context:
I offer to sell you my Toyota for $10,000
(IMG). And you say, OK. You bet. We meet the next day, and you hand over a big fat stack of $50 bill, $10,000 worth. And I say, thank you, and I hand over to you my toy Yoda
(IMG).
Question:
Are you obligated to take this action figure and continue your day? In other words, is that a binding contract? Answer with Yes or No and state the reason
Context:
Alexander is a famous artist in the US, and there is a big company in need of hiring an artist. Alexander and the company owner had an extensive conversation regarding Alexander coming to work at the company. On June 1, a week after those conversations occurred, Alexander send the company owner a signed letter dated June 1 stating, "I will work for the company as a head artist for two years for an annual salary of $100,000"
On the morning of June 7, the company owner telephoned Alexander and said, "The $100,000 is pretty stiff. Could you possibly consider working for less?" Alexander replied, "I am a renowned artist. I will not work for any less."
Later that morning, the company owner sent Alexander a signed letter by regular mail stating: "You obviously think you are too good for my company. I am no longer interested in hiring you to work for the company." Later that afternoon, the company owner had a change of heart and sent Alexander a registered, express-mail signed letter stating: "Okay, if you really won't work for any less, I agree to pay you the $100,000 a year you demanded to work as a head artist for two years"
On June 10, the registered, express-mail was delivered to Alexander's office. The regular mail letter containing the rejection was still on its way. Alexander accepted delivery of the registered, express-mail from the postal carrier and placed it on his desk without opening it.
On June 11, before Alexander read the registered, express-mail letter on his desk, he accepted an offer to work for a bigger company in Japan. Alexander called the US company's owner and said, "Sorry, I just took a job at a company in Japan. Too bad you couldn't afford me." The company's owner responded, "You can't work for another company, I already accepted your offer to work for my company for $100,000 a year."
Question:
Does Alexander have a contract with the company's owner in the US? Answer with Yes or No and state the reason
Context:
George v. Alexander
On December 21, 1953, two men, George and Alexander, got into a discussion about the sale of a house. This wasn't anything new to the two men, George had given Alexander multiple offers over the years, and in fact, about six to seven years prior to this case they had come to an oral agreement that Alexander would sell the house to George for $20,000. In the end however, Alexander backed out of the deal.
On this occasion, George was offering Alexander $60,000 for the house., but Alexander didn't believe George really had that kind of money, so George and Alexander drafted an agreement on the back of a restaurant check. Alexander wanted George to put his money where his mouth was, not really intending to sell the house at all, while George was serious about buying.
On the check Alexander wrote, "I do hereby agree to sell to W. O. George my house for $60,000 complete." Complete meant everything in that house. George reconsidered, then realized it would be better if the language changed to "We" instead of "I" and if Mrs. Alexander also signed. So the first draft was torn up and a new one drafted exactly the same, only this time with "We." According to Mrs. Alexander, she only signed this document because her husband assured her this was only a joke, and he wasn't intending on selling the house at all.
George offered to give Alexander $5 to seal the deal. Alexander refused to take the money. George and Alexander's testimony differs as to what Alexander said in response. George testified that Alexander said: "You don't need to give me any money, you got the agreement there signed by the both of us." However Alexander testified he said: "Hell no that is beer and liquor talking. I am not going to sell you the house. I have told you that too many times before."
The next day, December 22, 1953, George called his brother and the two got into an agreement that the brother would pay half the price and own half the interest in the property. On the same day, George hired a lawyer to examine the property title, and the lawyer cleared it by the end of the year. On January 3, 1954, George wrote a letter to Alexander explaining that he now knew the title was good, so he was ready to pay in cash. He wanted to know when Alexander would be ready to close the deal. It wasn't until January 14, that Alexander replied that he never agreed or intended to sell the house.
So ultimately they both went to the court to resolve the issue. Mr. Alexander claimed in his testimony that he bought that house for $11,000 10 years ago and that he had received many offers, always had declined and he had no intent to sell. Then he mentioned that he had been drinking that day, and that George seemed "pretty high" Alexander wanted to check to see if he recognize his own handwriting, saying, "Great balls of fire, I have got satisfactory spelled wrong. I don't recognize that writing if I would see it, wouldn't know it was mine." However, according to the waitress testimony, she said, "I heard Alexander say he did not intend to sell the house, and that both Alexander and George looked drunk." and she was really busy and not really paying attention to what was going on.
Question:
Was there a valid contract? Answer with Yes or No and state the reason
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.
