Question Connor urgently needed cash. So he decided to sell his car by parking it outside his house with a notice on the windscreen stating: “For sale. Excellent condition-one owner. $26,000 or nearest offer. Please call here at my home number 48 or phone 100 333 only”. On Monday at 9am Dolly saw the car but decided not to stop as she was late for work. She phoned from work and told Connor that she would give him $23,000 for his car. Connor said he would consider it. Eileen saw the car and called at number 48 on Monday at 11am. However, the only person there was Connor’s daughter, Hetti. Eileen wrote a note saying: “Monday 11.05 am. Please keep the car for me. Here is my cheque for $26,000—Eileen”. Hetti left the note on Connor’s desk in his study. On Monday afternoon Connor decided to sell the car to Dolly for $23,000. He posted a letter at 2.30pm that day to Dolly’s business address stating: “I agree to sell you my car on your terms”. This letter was received by Dolly on Wednesday at 10am. At 4.30pm on Monday Connor read Eileen’s note. He immediately phoned Dolly’s business address and left a message on her recorded answering service:” Ignore my letter that you will receive –the deal for my car is off”. Dolly was away on business and listened to the recorded message only on Wednesday evening at 8pm. At 2.15pm on Monday Fiona saw the notice on the car and hurriedly posted a letter stating that she would buy the car for the price of $26,000. She sent a cheque with the letter and posted the letter just in time for the 3.30pm postal collection. Unfortunately, as Fiona failed to address the letter correctly it arrived only on Friday. Advise:
a.Connor
b.Dolly
c.Eileen, and
d.Fiona
of their legal rights and obligations in relation to the above matters.
You are required to support your answer by reference to relevant legal authority.
Question 2 (12 marks)
Dan took his dinner suit and his wife’s silk dress to the Toff Dry Cleaners, a firm his family used
whenever they had dry cleaning to be done.
He was handed a docket and as usual he placed it in his wallet without reading it.
When Dan called to collect the clothing he was told that his dinner suit was missing and his wife’s silk
dress was badly stained. No explanation was given about the stained dress. However, one of the
assistants recalled handing the dinner suit to a customer who had apparently lost his docket but was
able to identify the dinner suit when allowed to sort through the rack of dry cleaned clothing
awaiting collection by customers.
Dan demanded compensation but the owner of Toff Dry Cleaners referred Dan to a clause on the
docket which read: “We will not be liable for any loss or damage to clothing left for cleaning”. The
owner also pointed to a sign at the back of the shop which had been displayed there for some time.
The sign said: “We take all care in the dry cleaning of our customers’ clothing but we regret we
cannot take any responsibility for loss or damage however caused”.
Dan protested that he had never read the sign or the docket.
1. Advise Dan whether he is entitled to compensation from Toff Dry Cleaners.
(7 marks)
2. Would it make any difference if Dan had noticed the clause on the docket and the
assistant had said: “That excludes liability for damage to buttons and zippers”
(2 marks)
3. ASSUME that Dan is entitled to compensation for the loss of his dinner suit and the stained
silk dress. He now tells you that because of what has happened his wife has suffered
emotional distress because the dress was a family heirloom. He also tells you that he and
his wife had to hire, at considerable expense, a dinner suit and a dress for a formal occasion
because of the loss and damage.
(3 marks).
You are required to support your answer by reference to relevant legal authority.

Read less