Not Guilty

If you take the Accused responses on the launch you would immediately think that he's guilty because he admitted it, but in reality it's not actually enough. The conversation provided was not enough to prove that he's guilty.

Let's think back what did he say:

Did he "want" to kill Alexander? Yes, sure. What husband wouldn't.
Did Alexander "deserve" to die for killing his wife? I think most people would agree with that.
Did he "plan" it over and over again in his head? Yes. How wouldn't fantasize about that.

None of these are admissions of guilt, and therefore, he cannot stay detained for long due to lacking of actual evidence linking him with the murder. That's why all the prosecutors never stop their questioning there, they ask the Accused more questions to try to prove that he's guilty. For instance, asking him how did he kill the victim, and what tools did he use to kill the victim.

A person can spend days and years planning in their head to kill somebody, but as long as they didn't translate that planning into action, nothing will happen to the person and they won't be considered guilty of anything.

Hope it makes sense for whoever is reading this.

It's not a legally binding contract

It's not a legally binding contract because eBay's special rules stated so. You guys got it right the first time.

But what if eBay didn't have this special rule regarding bidding on cars, would it still be not legally binding? No. The contract would be legally binding.

There was an offer of $48,000 and the acceptance of it by the Mercedes owner. The Mercedes owner can't tell that the person was too drunk to make the contract, so it would be legally binding.

There is a pretty good argument that all you saw was these bids going back and forth, how would you know if someone was too intoxicated to do it? Maybe our poor bidder can make out a claim, I don't know how he would muster the evidence, that I was really so drunk I didn't know what it was that I was doing, but it's a really hard claim to make.

It's not a binding contract

I meant to type "I offer to sell you my Toyota" for that reason. A reasonable objective person would never -I don' think- think that when I was talking about a $10,000 Toyota I meant that action figure.

When this case went to court, the judge said, "If it was spelled "Toyoda" instead of "Toyota" then you would've been obligated to take the action figure instead of the car." And the court found for the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay her the price of a Toyota car.

Alexander has a contract with the US company owner

So, the first issue is whether Alexander made an offer to work for the US company owner. An "offer" is the manifestation of a willingness to enter into an agreement, and must be communicated directly to the offeree. Alexander's letter was an offer - "I will work for the company as the head artist for two years for an annual salary of $100,000." - It expressed a promise to work for the US company owner, its terms were defined, and it was communicated to the owner directly via mail, and we know it was received and read because of the owner's phone call asking about the salary proposed.

The second issue is whether the US company owner accepted Alexander's offer. The company owner's first response to Alexander about whether he would "consider working for less" It did not reject the offer, it was a counter offer. The company owner then sent two letters: A rejection letter by regular mail, followed by an acceptance letter by express mail. The company owner's first letter expressed rejection of the offer ( "I am no longer interested in hiring you" ) The company owner's second letter was potentially an effective acceptance to the terms of the offer ( "I agree to pay you $100,000 a year ___ to work ___ as the head artist for two years." ) The company owner didn't change anything about the terms of Alexander's offer.

Finally, An acceptance is effective at dispatch while rejection is effective upon receipt. However, the company owner sent a rejection letter and then an acceptance letter. In such cases, whichever communication the offeror receives first is effective. It does not matter when Alexander open or read the letters, it only matter which letter was received first. Alexander received the acceptance letter first on June 10. As soon as he accepted the delivery, a valid contract was formed.

There is a valid contract between Alexander and George

This case has a lot of details in it.

George tried to pay $5 to seal the deal or bind the bargain, and Alexander, at that point, refused and said we don't have an agreement, and Alexander later went to deny that there was a contract.

Why does Alexander say there wasn't a contract? He said that we were joking around and this was not a real binding commitment. And this means now that the entire issue of the case centers around whether we have a real offer and acceptance, whether there was really an agreement that would then give rise to a contract.

We all know that nobody can make a legally binding contract while they're drunk. But when you look at the list below of some facts you might change your view on this case:

• They talked for a while
• They haggled back and forth
• They wrote it down
• They thought through the title provisions
• They had both he and his wife go back and sign it
• They negotiated for a while

Ultimately, the court was convinced by a variety of things that any reasonable person would think this was a real deal, and therefore, it became a real deal. The court found that the parties weren't too intoxicated to make a contract, and thus, the contract holds.