A nice juicy steak in peppercorn sauce with carrots, broccoli & baby corn - in fact, as I'm a cheap date, i'd eat it for nothing :~D
what would you eat for a paltry 200 quid?
- Thread starter toffee
- Start date
Sponsored Links
In England this would be straightforward...Nestor_Kelebay said:
At the moment that the money was eaten, the contract had been made. However, it was not performed, because the money had not reached the hands of the goat owner. Therefore legal title to the goat remains with Farmer B (not Farmer A as I originally stated, before editing this post).
However, Farmer B (as above) has not exercised his duty of care with respect to controlling his goat, and therefore is liable for the loss of Farmer A's money.
Softus said:
not arguing.....suggest you read it again....makes perfect sense what you said, except farmer a went to see farmer b about a goat in the first place, therefor...for all of the reasons you stated, ownership would be farmer b-who owned the goat at the start.
Dagnabbit - I even double-checked that before pressing the buttonmlb3c said:not arguing.....suggest you read it again....makes perfect sense what you said, except farmer a went to see farmer b about a goat in the first place, therefor...for all of the reasons you stated, ownership would be farmer b-who owned the goat at the start.
OK - I shall go back and edit the post - hopefully that will add clarity, rather than remove it...
Sponsored Links
M
Moz
"shall go back and edit the post"
what you mean you can edit posts here ?...lol...lol...lol...lol
what you mean you can edit posts here ?...lol...lol...lol...lol
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2006
- Messages
- 494
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
Actually, this goat question was a discussion question, so there are arguments to be made on both sides, but I think the strongest argument is that Farmer A now owns that goat.
The reason why is that in the British Common Law (which both Canada and the US also share, as well as Australia and I expect India and New Zealand) a contract is formed when an offer to purchase or sell goods has been accepted. Both sides are then legally bound to their respective sides of the deal; Farmer A to pay $50 to Farmer B for the goat and Farmer B to deliver the goat to Farmer A.
By placing the 50 pound note on the table, Farmer A was clearly accepting Farmer B's price for the goat, so at that moment a contract was formed. That contract required Farmer A to pay the agreed price (which he did) and required Farmer B to deliver the goat.
The discussion comes in as to whether or not it's reasonable to presume that an "implied term" of the contract was that Farmer B receive the money paid by Farmer A, and whether or not Farmer B was ever in possession of that money.
Still, on the surface of it, it seems that all the two men agreed to was that in exchange for Farmer A paying 50 pounds, Farmer B would give him the goat.
Farmer A performed his side of the deal.
The thing to be learned from this is that it's exactly these kinds of unforeseen circumstances that cause arguments between contractors and customers, and keep lawyers busy. Better to keep the possibility of unforseen circumstances in mind when negotiating the deal to avoid both the arguments and the lawyers.
The reason why is that in the British Common Law (which both Canada and the US also share, as well as Australia and I expect India and New Zealand) a contract is formed when an offer to purchase or sell goods has been accepted. Both sides are then legally bound to their respective sides of the deal; Farmer A to pay $50 to Farmer B for the goat and Farmer B to deliver the goat to Farmer A.
By placing the 50 pound note on the table, Farmer A was clearly accepting Farmer B's price for the goat, so at that moment a contract was formed. That contract required Farmer A to pay the agreed price (which he did) and required Farmer B to deliver the goat.
The discussion comes in as to whether or not it's reasonable to presume that an "implied term" of the contract was that Farmer B receive the money paid by Farmer A, and whether or not Farmer B was ever in possession of that money.
Still, on the surface of it, it seems that all the two men agreed to was that in exchange for Farmer A paying 50 pounds, Farmer B would give him the goat.
Farmer A performed his side of the deal.
The thing to be learned from this is that it's exactly these kinds of unforeseen circumstances that cause arguments between contractors and customers, and keep lawyers busy. Better to keep the possibility of unforseen circumstances in mind when negotiating the deal to avoid both the arguments and the lawyers.
toffee said:discussed this at work today.
If you say would you eat bla bla bla for a million pounds then the answer is quite likely to be yes.
What about for a mere 200quid on the table?
!) 10 live maggots?
2) 1 live large house spider?
3) 1 black slug?
4) toe nail clipping?
Well... we did have a quiet moment
I would eat the maggots & spider no problem. If I had had a few pints I would probably eat them to show that I could! I once saw my brothers young daughter eat half of a large slug.toffee said:discussed this at work today.
If you say would you eat bla bla bla for a million pounds then the answer is quite likely to be yes.
What about for a mere 200quid on the table?
!) 10 live maggots?
2) 1 live large house spider?
3) 1 black slug?
4) toe nail clipping?
Well... we did have a quiet moment
Nestor_Kelebay, your explanation is exceedingly clear and rational, but I would disagree on a few points (minor ones, since you've pointed out that the purpose of the question is discussion), namely:
1. In English Law, contracts are covered by Contract Law, not Common Law.
2. Although there was a binding contract, in Contract Law performance cannot be enforced, only remedy for breach. Since your question didn't extend to the point beyond the money being eaten, and there was no express term that stipulated a time limit, it isn't safe to assume that either party was (yet) in breach of contract.
3. I don't share your view that it's reasonable to question whether or not receipt of the money was an implied term, because safe transfer of the money, and of the goat, is repudiatory to the contract. By this argument Farmer A did not perform his side of the contract, hence title to the goat rested with Farmer B until full payment was safely received.
It is, however, moot as to whether or not Farmer A, in placing the money within the reach of the goat, was culpible in its unexpected consumption, but this is a separate matter.
1. In English Law, contracts are covered by Contract Law, not Common Law.
2. Although there was a binding contract, in Contract Law performance cannot be enforced, only remedy for breach. Since your question didn't extend to the point beyond the money being eaten, and there was no express term that stipulated a time limit, it isn't safe to assume that either party was (yet) in breach of contract.
3. I don't share your view that it's reasonable to question whether or not receipt of the money was an implied term, because safe transfer of the money, and of the goat, is repudiatory to the contract. By this argument Farmer A did not perform his side of the contract, hence title to the goat rested with Farmer B until full payment was safely received.
It is, however, moot as to whether or not Farmer A, in placing the money within the reach of the goat, was culpible in its unexpected consumption, but this is a separate matter.
Sponsored Links
