alright well this is my last attempt because im genuinely stumped on this lol
case 1: yes the accused is guilty because he specifically said yes to arranging both the murders of Alexander and George.
case 2: no, eBay's terms of conditions say that bidding on a car is not a binding contract therefore he shouldn't be obligated to follow up.
case 3: no because both seller and buyer agreed on a toyota and in this case the seller breached their contract by giving the buyer a toy yoda instead.
case 4: yes because alexander sent the company owner a signed letter stating that he will work for the company for $10,000 annually for 2 years. alexander didn't even recieve the rejection letter yet before accepting a job offer for the company in Japan so if this went to court alexander would probably lose.
case 5: i'm going to say no for this one. my reasoning is because this case is probably in favor of the seller and he can pull out of a sale at any point. he never really intended to sell the house at all and even if there was a written contract signed by both mr and mrs alexander it doesn't help george's case because both of them were drunk. this case doesn't meet all the requirements to have a binding contract between both of them.
case 1: yes the accused is guilty because he specifically said yes to arranging both the murders of Alexander and George.
case 2: no, eBay's terms of conditions say that bidding on a car is not a binding contract therefore he shouldn't be obligated to follow up.
case 3: no because both seller and buyer agreed on a toyota and in this case the seller breached their contract by giving the buyer a toy yoda instead.
case 4: yes because alexander sent the company owner a signed letter stating that he will work for the company for $10,000 annually for 2 years. alexander didn't even recieve the rejection letter yet before accepting a job offer for the company in Japan so if this went to court alexander would probably lose.
case 5: i'm going to say no for this one. my reasoning is because this case is probably in favor of the seller and he can pull out of a sale at any point. he never really intended to sell the house at all and even if there was a written contract signed by both mr and mrs alexander it doesn't help george's case because both of them were drunk. this case doesn't meet all the requirements to have a binding contract between both of them.
I'll give it a go I guess, despite knowing nothing about law:
1) Yes, regardless of not stating it outright he implied it pretty heavily and didn't refute any accusations.
2) No, although they could be binding if ebay decided to enforce it, as it stands ebay classifies them as non-binding.
3) No, there was no mutual intent in exchanging Yoda for that money.
4) Yes. Regardless if the acceptance leter was opened, it validaded the agreement as soon as it was received by Alexander. Therefore the letter he received after had no effect because the binding agreement was already active.
5) No. The most damning thing about it imo is that they were both drunk, so Mr. Alexander can easily claim that he was too intoxicated to make informed decisions. This is provable by the fact that the agreement was written on a restaurant check with crude handwriting and spelling mistakes. The waitress can also back up Alexander in this situation.
-----
Seems that while I was writing my response Skrr already posted one with the same conclusions. Oh well!
1) Yes, regardless of not stating it outright he implied it pretty heavily and didn't refute any accusations.
2) No, although they could be binding if ebay decided to enforce it, as it stands ebay classifies them as non-binding.
3) No, there was no mutual intent in exchanging Yoda for that money.
4) Yes. Regardless if the acceptance leter was opened, it validaded the agreement as soon as it was received by Alexander. Therefore the letter he received after had no effect because the binding agreement was already active.
5) No. The most damning thing about it imo is that they were both drunk, so Mr. Alexander can easily claim that he was too intoxicated to make informed decisions. This is provable by the fact that the agreement was written on a restaurant check with crude handwriting and spelling mistakes. The waitress can also back up Alexander in this situation.
-----
Seems that while I was writing my response Skrr already posted one with the same conclusions. Oh well!
Last edited by Smaguris; Mar 25, 2022 at 11:04 AM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
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
No: He's more interested in being the murderer than actually getting away with the murder. The dude lied
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
No: He's more interested in being the murderer than actually getting away with the murder. The dude lied
Chickster: I literally don't know why I did it.
Case No.1:
No, he did indeed say he planned it in his mind over and over but that was the only question he said yes for. All the other questions he was asked, he didn't say yes or no. He just told them how much he wanted them dead. He isn't guilty without evidence.
Case No.2:
No. Non-bidding.
Case No.3:
Although it is really scumbag like, I'd have to say yes because you didn't see a picture of the seller with said car, as well as you handing over the money without seeing the car anywhere near the seller.
Case No.4:
No, because the artist would've had to confirm with the company owner that they got the letter and are indeed, ready to work for them. He didn't do that, nor did the rejection letter even arrive yet.
Case No.5:
Yeah, unfortunately. Even if both people we're so called "drunk" or "high", Alexander still wrote said agreement letter knowing that George was serious, which means both parties agreed at said time even if Alexander was joking. It's a written contract.
i may just be stupid idk
No, he did indeed say he planned it in his mind over and over but that was the only question he said yes for. All the other questions he was asked, he didn't say yes or no. He just told them how much he wanted them dead. He isn't guilty without evidence.
Case No.2:
No. Non-bidding.
Case No.3:
Although it is really scumbag like, I'd have to say yes because you didn't see a picture of the seller with said car, as well as you handing over the money without seeing the car anywhere near the seller.
Case No.4:
No, because the artist would've had to confirm with the company owner that they got the letter and are indeed, ready to work for them. He didn't do that, nor did the rejection letter even arrive yet.
Case No.5:
Yeah, unfortunately. Even if both people we're so called "drunk" or "high", Alexander still wrote said agreement letter knowing that George was serious, which means both parties agreed at said time even if Alexander was joking. It's a written contract.
i may just be stupid idk
static | toad (ormo) max | haku
I'll c/p the first post with new answers for case 4 & 5, so there's no confusion
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 - Yes, he's under a contract. Alexander was the first to send a letter with an offer, to which the US owner accepted and sent a response letter via express mail - in other word, this was a two-way agreement (Alexander working for the US company for 100k annually.) Doesn't matter if the rejection letter arrived or not (or ever), it won't nullify the offer agreement which arrived first. Alexander is in the fault for not opening the letter of acceptance.
Case #5 - No, it's a voided contract. The waitress confirmed the party involved was intoxicated at the time. 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.
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 - Yes, he's under a contract. Alexander was the first to send a letter with an offer, to which the US owner accepted and sent a response letter via express mail - in other word, this was a two-way agreement (Alexander working for the US company for 100k annually.) Doesn't matter if the rejection letter arrived or not (or ever), it won't nullify the offer agreement which arrived first. Alexander is in the fault for not opening the letter of acceptance.
Case #5 - No, it's a voided contract. The waitress confirmed the party involved was intoxicated at the time. 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.
