Again, your approach should be to break down the question into its constituent parts: (a) The effect of Cedric’s letter—is it an offer or an invitation to treat? (b) The effect of Dorothy’s letter—is it an acceptance? Do the postal acceptance rules apply? Is Dorothy’s letter a statement of intention? (c) Is Dorothy’s letter an offer? Can she waive the necessity for the communication of the acceptance if she so chooses? The question therefore expects you to carefully consider the facts and the uncertainties, consulting case law and perhaps texts in areas touching on these matters. As we have noted in our responses in Figure 8.2, above, with regard to part (a), if a contract has been formed, then Cedric is in breach of this contract when he sells the coin to Timothy. With regard to case law and commentators it does seem highly likely that, in these circumstances, no contract has been formed with Dorothy and Cedric is free to sell the stamp. With regard to part (b), if Dorothy has made an offer, not an acceptance, then Cedric has possibly accepted the offer when he takes the step of setting aside the stamp, as it is possible to show acceptance by conduct. If this is the case, a contract has been formed and Dorothy is obliged to buy the stamp. It needs to be noted that there are flaws and weakness in this particular question. There are, however, significant weaknesses in reaching this conclusion. It should also be noticed that at present we have suggested issues but as yet we have: • No argument by way of linked propositions; • No proofs (law cases) supporting or denying our propositions (or texts discussing areas where the law is unknown or uncertain). Without a sustained argument backed by law cases there is no competent answer to the problem question! Yet often students stop at teasing out the issues in a haphazard way and maybe, just maybe throwing in one or two general cases. Can you begin to see the difficulty? Having used the word identification to sort out the legal issues they come down to the following.

DOI link for Again, your approach should be to break down the question into its constituent parts: (a) The effect of Cedric’s letter—is it an offer or an invitation to treat? (b) The effect of Dorothy’s letter—is it an acceptance? Do the postal acceptance rules apply? Is Dorothy’s letter a statement of intention? (c) Is Dorothy’s letter an offer? Can she waive the necessity for the communication of the acceptance if she so chooses? The question therefore expects you to carefully consider the facts and the uncertainties, consulting case law and perhaps texts in areas touching on these matters. As we have noted in our responses in Figure 8.2, above, with regard to part (a), if a contract has been formed, then Cedric is in breach of this contract when he sells the coin to Timothy. With regard to case law and commentators it does seem highly likely that, in these circumstances, no contract has been formed with Dorothy and Cedric is free to sell the stamp. With regard to part (b), if Dorothy has made an offer, not an acceptance, then Cedric has possibly accepted the offer when he takes the step of setting aside the stamp, as it is possible to show acceptance by conduct. If this is the case, a contract has been formed and Dorothy is obliged to buy the stamp. It needs to be noted that there are flaws and weakness in this particular question. There are, however, significant weaknesses in reaching this conclusion. It should also be noticed that at present we have suggested issues but as yet we have: • No argument by way of linked propositions; • No proofs (law cases) supporting or denying our propositions (or texts discussing areas where the law is unknown or uncertain). Without a sustained argument backed by law cases there is no competent answer to the problem question! Yet often students stop at teasing out the issues in a haphazard way and maybe, just maybe throwing in one or two general cases. Can you begin to see the difficulty? Having used the word identification to sort out the legal issues they come down to the following.

Again, your approach should be to break down the question into its constituent parts: (a) The effect of Cedric’s letter—is it an offer or an invitation to treat? (b) The effect of Dorothy’s letter—is it an acceptance? Do the postal acceptance rules apply? Is Dorothy’s letter a statement of intention? (c) Is Dorothy’s letter an offer? Can she waive the necessity for the communication of the acceptance if she so chooses? The question therefore expects you to carefully consider the facts and the uncertainties, consulting case law and perhaps texts in areas touching on these matters. As we have noted in our responses in Figure 8.2, above, with regard to part (a), if a contract has been formed, then Cedric is in breach of this contract when he sells the coin to Timothy. With regard to case law and commentators it does seem highly likely that, in these circumstances, no contract has been formed with Dorothy and Cedric is free to sell the stamp. With regard to part (b), if Dorothy has made an offer, not an acceptance, then Cedric has possibly accepted the offer when he takes the step of setting aside the stamp, as it is possible to show acceptance by conduct. If this is the case, a contract has been formed and Dorothy is obliged to buy the stamp. It needs to be noted that there are flaws and weakness in this particular question. There are, however, significant weaknesses in reaching this conclusion. It should also be noticed that at present we have suggested issues but as yet we have: • No argument by way of linked propositions; • No proofs (law cases) supporting or denying our propositions (or texts discussing areas where the law is unknown or uncertain). Without a sustained argument backed by law cases there is no competent answer to the problem question! Yet often students stop at teasing out the issues in a haphazard way and maybe, just maybe throwing in one or two general cases. Can you begin to see the difficulty? Having used the word identification to sort out the legal issues they come down to the following.