Why would a shrewd seller even transact with a buyer who must pledge bills of lading, just to finance the transaction? I don't grok the facts of this case. What does refused to redeem the pledge when the bills of lading were tendered to them by Chabbra mean? Why must the buyers redeem the pledge, once Chabbra (seller) tendered the buyers the BoL? Why would a savvy seller even transact with buyers who couldn’t pay for the transaction upfront? Aren't such buyers — who must pledge BoLs to finance a transaction — obviously risky and unreliable? Chabbra Corp PTE Ltd v Owners of the Jag Shakti (The Jag Shakti) [1986] AC 337 (PC) FACTS: Chabbra Corp PTE Ltd (the seller) shipped a cargo of salt on board the Jag Shakti (a ship belonging to the defendants). The buyers of the cargo had pledged the bills of lading to Chabbra in order to finance the transaction. The buyers persuaded the defendants to release the goods to them, without presentation of the bills of lading, by providing them with an indemnity, and then refused to redeem the pledge when the bills of lading were tendered to them by Chabbra. Chabbra sued the ship owners for conversion. HELD: Chabbra was entitled in principle to recover the full market value of the goods at unloading from the carrier, though owing to a lack of evidence as to that value, it must be content with the sum it had advanced to the buyers. Lee Roach, Commercial Law 2019 3e, p 39.
The note you have quoted does not accurately summarise the decision, which is available on BAILII. What happened was: IOC agreed to sell 5,000 tons of salt to Mumtazzudin. Atlas paid IOC for the salt on behalf of Mumtazzudin. Because Atlas paid, Atlas received the bills of lading. Thus, the salt was pledged to Atlas to secure the money owed by Mumtazzudin. Atlas endorsed the bills of lading over to Chabbra for value. In other words, Atlas sold Chabbra the right to be repaid by Mumtazzudin, and to take delivery of the salt as security for the debt. Mumtazzudin persuaded the shipowner to hand over the salt without presenting the bill of lading. Chabbra sued the shipowner for conversion (destroying the value of its security). What does “refused to redeem the pledge when the bills of lading were tendered to them by Chabbra” mean? Chabbra, as the pledgee of the bills of lading, was entitled to possession of the salt, until Mumtazzudin “redeemed the pledge” by paying Chabbra the amount originally advanced by Atlas. But Mumtazzudin managed to get the salt without the bills of lading, so it refused to pay Chabbra. Why would a savvy seller even transact with buyers who couldn’t pay for the transaction upfront? The alternative may be that the sale is not made at all. However, that is not what happened in this case – the seller got paid.
One of the principles of contract law is that the offer and acceptance are evaluated based on the objectively ascertainable intentions as judged by a reasonable person. On the facts that you have provided - even if your friend claims that they filled it out wrong, there is no reason for someone to objectively think so, particularly given the fact that they went to the trouble of writing the information in. However, this will depend on what kind of legally binding document this is. If it is, in fact, a contract, then the employer must accept it before it becomes legally binding, and they must actually communicate this acceptance to your friend (the offeror). If this is a policy document, then it is only legally binding if another contract has said that it is legally binding - generally, (smart) employers will include a clause in their employment contract stating that you are to adhere to policies but that those policies do not form part of the contract. If that is the case, then your friend is legally bound by the terms of the policy and will breach their employment contract if they do not adhere to this policy. This is unlikely to be an issue of contract law in and of itself - your friend cannot unilaterally bind their employer to terms as he sees fit. More information - including the nature of the document and other agreements that were made - would be required to provide more useful information (and that's what you would give to a lawyer).
This is not prohibiting the resale. You can resell your old box, but you can not transfer your account, and since the box can't take a new account, it is not a useful item to anyone but the original account holder. It is not illegal to make a resale effectively impossible, but you can not ban it under the First Sale Doctrine and [Patent] Exhaustion Doctrine. Accounts are in this case not sold items but subscriptions and don't fall under First Sale but instead are running contracts - and can be regulated as the contracting parties put into the contract. This contract can ban the transfer (for money or free) of the contract.
Yes, for those who 'liked' the business after reading the post, but less likely for those who had already liked the business. Under contract law, the business's post is an offer to share the winnings with anyone who is a friend of the business on Facebook. A promise is enforceable if consideration is provided under a bargain; the consideration can be of nominal value (e.g. the act of 'liking' a page). In the context of a business page, in a time when 'followers' and the like are regarded as valuable from a marketing perspective, it is entirely reasonable to interpret the post as offering an exchange of likes for a chance to win money. The commercial context and involvement of money would cause a court to presume that there was an intention to create a legally-binding contract (Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95; Banque Brussels Lambert SA v Australian National Industries Ltd (1989) 21 NSWLR 502). I am not entirely familiar with how the designation 'Friend' applies to businesses on Facebook. My understanding is that businesses have pages that are different to user pages. Businesses don't have 'friends'. They have people who 'like' the business. However, the word 'Friend' in the post has to be given content and therefore would be read as 'people who are listed as having liked this page'. People who had already liked the page are less likely to be able to enforce the promise to share the winnings, because they didn't do anything. They might be able to argue that they forwent the opportunity to un-like the business and that this forbearance is consideration. However, they would have to show that this was in consideration of the offer to share the winnings. Contract law is based on objective manifestations of agreement, not subjective thoughts (Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422), so it isn't necessary to show that the individual did in fact have the offer in mind when they liked (or didn't un-like) the page. However, it is necessary that the promisee have knowledge of the offer and not be acting out of some completely separate purpose (R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227); therefore if a user had liked the page some time ago and never knew about the offer until after the lottery was won, then they might have a hard time claiming a binding contract. Aside from contract law, the other possible head of liability is equitable estoppel (I mention this particularly for the people who had already 'liked' the business page before the offer was posted). However, equitable estoppel usually requires some element of detrimental reliance. Leaving a pre-existing 'like' on a page in reliance on a promise to share lottery winnings is unlikely to stir a court to find an equitable estoppel, since the detriment is trivial. Contrast Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387, where the detrimental reliance was knocking down a building and starting to construct a replacement. Equitable remedies are discretionary, so the judge has plenty of leeway to not order compensation. This answer is based on the common law. There is nothing in Texas law which would make the outcome any different to the outcome in any other common law jurisdiction.
No If the price advertised is not honoured by the business and you are asked to pay a higher price, you do not have an automatic right to buy the item at the special offer or sale price. As long as the shop or business tells you before you pay that the higher price applies, you have the option to either buy it at the higher price or decide not to. However, the shop or business may be in breach of consumer law in relation to misleading advertising. The prosecution (or not) of the misleading advertising is the government’s task, not yours. This is a common formulation across Common Law jurisdictions as it a codification of the historic common law position. An advertised price is not an offer capable of acceptance, it is an invitation to treat. That is, it is an invitation for you to make them an offer and the price that is likely to be accepted. It is overlaid with later developments in consumer protection surrounding false advertising and misleading and deceptive conduct.
Dead people have to pay their debts just like everybody else It is one of the primary roles of the executor to make sure this happens. Dead people can dispute a debt just like everybody else Just because someone says you owe them money, that doesn't mean you owe them money. In fact, the onus of proving the debt lies with the person claiming the money. It is perfectly reasonable for an executor to ask the creditor to do so. Some questions that are appropriate to ask: Presumably, the entitlement arises under a contract; when was the contract entered into? What were its terms? Where is the evidence the deceased agreed to these terms? Do the terms comply with (consumer) law? Have the prices been calculated in accordance with the terms? Have previous invoices been submitted and paid on the same basis? All the issues you mentioned. These are all things the creditor would need to prove if they went to court. If they can provide satisfactory answers to these then pay the bill. If they can't then try to agree to a settlement amount acceptable to both parties. If you can't do that, let them sue the estate and let a judge decide. The debts of the deceased person are payable by the estate of the deceased person for which the executor is the trustee. The executor has a duty to the beneficiaries of the estate to act in their best interest. This means paying bills that they are satisfied are justified, contesting those that aren't but ultimately, making commercial decisions that benefit the beneficiaries. Getting bogged down in a court case may not be in their best interest especially if it delays finalisation of the estate. In any event, the executor is not liable personally for the debt, or for anything they do or fail to do if done or not done in good faith.
Terms in a contract that are not legal or not enforcable are quite capable of causing you trouble and costing you time or money, most likely a generous amount of both. Your friend shouldn't care one bit about whether these terms would be legal and/or enforcable. If he doesn't like them, then he MUST NOT accept the changed contract. Not if these terms are illegal and unenforceable and of course even less if they are legal and enforceable. I would write back "I believe that the suggested change in terms is illegal and would be unenforceable. I also believe that the change is deeply unfair towards me and creates a considerable legal risk that I am not willing to accept under any circumstances. I therefore strongly reject your suggested change. "
Transfer of Personal Property The question is: are you still the owner of the guitar or is your friend now the owner. If you gifted them the guitar, they are the owner. A gift requires: intention to transfer title (you had this), delivery of the property (this happened), acceptance of the delivery by the recipient (he took it). At first glance, the guitar is now his. The concept of a conditional gift is irrelevant once the transfer has taken place - it relates to the promise to gift in the future if some condition is met and, unlike a contract, is not binding. If you have a conditional gift you can decide not to give the gift up until you make the transfer - after that, the item is no longer yours. You are now trying to make out that the transfer was by operation of a contract. This seems unlikely - see What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid? In particular I doubt that there was an intention to create legal relations or that the agreement was sufficiently detailed - was he required to attend the class? complete the class? enroll in the class? something else? You may have been clear in your mind that the guitar was for the class - was he? Or did the conversation go like "I'm taking a guitar class.", "Cool, I have a guitar I can give you." Even if there was a contract and he broke it, you are not entitled to the guitar back. You are entitled to the damage that you suffered by him not completing the class. Presumably, this would be the cost of hiring a competent amateur guitarist to play for you a few times.