Case 1:

Mr. X made a contract with Mr. Y that in exchange for a hefty sum of money He (Mr. Y) will
sanction his (Mr. X) application for lease. Mr. Y takes the money but still rejects the
application of Mr. X.

Can Mr. X file a case against Mr. Y in this regard? If Yes/No; then why? (Answer in short)

Answer:

In the given scenario we see that in spite of taking a hefty sum of money Mr. Y did not
sanction the lease application of Mr. X.

Based on essential elements of contract we know that any contract to be enforceable it has to
have legality. In the given context, Mr. X cannot file a case against Mr. Y because even
though there was mutual agreement between the two parties initially, the subject matter of the
deal between them was illegal as the money that was given was a bribe for illegal benefits to
be received.

Case 2:

Sara offers to sell her laptop to Hira for BDT 50,000. Hira replies, "I’ll buy it for BDT
45,000." Sara declines. The next day, Hira contacts Sara and says, "I’ll pay BDT 50,000 for
the laptop." Sara informs Hira that the laptop has already been sold to another buyer. Is Hira
entitled to buy the laptop from Sara for BDT 50,000?

Answer:

In the given scenario that Sara declined Hira’s counter offer and the day after when Hira
wanted to make a deal on the original offer the laptop was already sold.

According to contract law we know that when a counter offer is presented the original offer
gets terminated. Thus, applying that principle to the given context, it can be said that the
initial offer of selling the laptop for BDT. 50,000 was terminated as soon as Hira made the
counter offer for BDT. 45,000. Building on that Hira cannot make any claims on the laptop
the next day and is not entitled to its purchase.
Case Study 3:

John, a student, told his friend David that if David helped him with his math assignment, he
would take David out to dinner at a fancy restaurant. David completed the assignment for
John, but later, John decided not to fulfil his promise, stating that it was just a casual offer
made between friends. Is there any legal consequence in this scenario?

Answer:

In the given context; In spite of receiving help from David, John refused to hold up his end of
the deal of taking him out for a fancy dinner in return for getting his assignment done by
David.

According to contract law, we know that an agreement must be enforceable by law. For that
to happen it is essential that there must be an intention to create a legal relationship between
the parties in a contract. It is evident that in the given scenario there was no intention to
create any legal relationship between John and David. Thus, there is no legal consequence in
the given scenario.

Case Study 4:

Sarah, who is 16, agrees to sell her used bicycle to her friend Jake for $100. They shake
hands and discuss the terms, but before the transaction is completed, Sarah has a change of
heart and decides she wants to keep the bike. When Jake confronts her about the sale, Sarah
confidently tells him she is not obligated to go through with it. Is there any legal obligation in
this scenario?

Answer:

In the given context, we see that in spite of there being a mutual agreement between Sarah
and Jake, the offeror changes her mind to complete the transaction.

According to contract law, we know that with mutual offer and acceptance a contract is said
to be formed. In the given scenario it was evident that there was a lawful offer and an
unqualified acceptance to the offer. Thus, a contract was formed and of course Sarah is
legally obligated to perform her portion of the consideration. However, since the contract was
verbal the question of enforceability remains a bit tricky.
Case Study 5:

M, a 17-year-old minor, enters into a contract with N to buy a car. M makes a down payment
but later refuses to complete the purchase. Can N sue M for breach of contract?

Answer:

In the given context, M despite being a minor entered into a contract and refused to complete
their end of the deal on account of their minority.

According to contract law, it is pretty evident that minors lack the capacity to form a contract
based on the law that they are subject to. So, building on the principle it is suffice to say that
N cannot sue M on grounds of no performance as minors cannot be sued for specific
performance without the presence of their agent or legal guardian.

Case Study 6:

Mark, a 17-year-old high school student, purchases school supplies on a small loan from a
local store. The lender expects regular payments to be made over the next few months.
However, when the lender contacts Mark to collect the first payment, he argues that he
shouldn’t have to pay because he is a minor. Is there any legal obligation in the given
scenario?

Answer:

In the given context we see that Mark refused payments to the local store on his purchase on
grounds of being a minor.

In contract law we learnt that minors are not capable of making contracts with others.
However there exists a clause that minors are liable for paying for their necessities. With that
in mind in the given scenario, as a high school student Mark obtained his necessaries as a
student from the local store. This makes Mark obligated to pay his dues to the local store. If
he fails to refuses to pay for the deal then the local store is entitled to take legal actions
against him.