This lecture is about business law case study

1. Assignment# 1
Submitted to: Imran siddiqui
Submitted by: Falak sher
Subject: Business Law
Date: 24/04/023
Case 1
Based on the facts presented, it appears that Gaylord Smelser bought a Dodge 4WD diesel truck from a
dealer, experienced transmission problems, and repeatedly sought repairs. Smelser then sued
DaimlerChrysler, the manufacturer, and instructed his attorney, Price, to negotiate a settlement that
included a "lifetime warranty" for the truck. DaimlerChrysler's attorney sent Price a letter with
settlement terms, but the "lifetime warranty" was not included. Price did not communicate the letter to
Smelser, and DaimlerChrysler moved to enforce the settlement. Smelser now argues that there was no
contract to settle the case.
Based on contract law principles, a valid contract generally requires an offer, acceptance, consideration
(something of value exchanged between the parties), and mutual intent to be bound by the terms of the
contract. In this case, it appears that DaimlerChrysler's attorney sent a letter with settlement terms, but
it is not clear if Smelser or his attorney, Price, formally accepted those terms. Smelser's instruction to
Price to negotiate a settlement that included a "lifetime warranty" could potentially be considered an
offer, but it would depend on the specific circumstances and whether Price communicated this offer to
DaimlerChrysler's attorney.
Furthermore, Price's failure to communicate the letter from DaimlerChrysler's attorney to Smelser could
potentially be seen as a lack of acceptance or communication of the terms, which could affect the
formation of a contract. Smelser's argument that there was no contract to settle the case may have
some merit based on the facts presented, particularly if there was no clear acceptance of the settlement
terms by Smelser or his attorney.
Case2
Based on the facts provided:
John Kartheiser was employed by American National Can Co. for eleven years.
Kartheiser had access to American's Engineering Office Manual, which contained an overtime policy.
Kartheiser was a supervisor responsible for overseeing payment of employees under the overtime
policy.
American also had a Human Resources Manual, which had a disclaimer stating that any manuals
provided to employees were for informational purposes only.
Kartheiser was not aware of the disclaimer in the Human Resources Manual.
Kartheiser sued American for overtime pay under the overtime policy.

2. American claimed that the disclaimer in its Human Resources Manual prevented the overtime policy
from being enforceable.
Case 3
Based on the information provided, O'Keefe would likely not be correct in claiming that the
advertisement was an offer that he accepted, creating a binding agreement in the case of O'Keefe v. Lee
Calan Imports.
In contract law, an advertisement is generally considered an invitation to make an offer, not an offer
itself. The classic example is the "invitation to treat" or "invitation to negotiate" in which the seller is
inviting potential buyers to make an offer, and the seller has the right to accept or reject the offer.
In this case, the advertisement for the sale of the Volvo station wagon at $1,095 in the Chicago Sun-
Times appears to be a misprint, as the actual price of the automobile was $1,795. Therefore, it is likely
that the advertisement was not a valid offer, but rather an invitation to make an offer. O'Keefe's offer to
buy the Volvo for $1,095 would not have been accepted by Lee Calan Imports, as it did not match the
actual price of the automobile.
Furthermore, Lee Calan's refusal to sell the car for $1,095 would likely be seen as a rejection of O'Keefe's
offer, rather than an acceptance, and therefore no binding agreement would have been created.
In conclusion, it is unlikely that O'Keefe would be correct in claiming that the advertisement was an offer
that he accepted, creating a binding agreement. The advertisement was likely an invitation to make an
offer, and Lee Calan's refusal to sell the car at the advertised price would not constitute acceptance,
resulting in no binding agreement between the parties.
Case 4
In this scenario, Thoelke's letter stating his acceptance of Morrison's offer to buy the land at the price
quoted in the letter would generally be considered a valid acceptance, creating a binding contract
between Morrison and Thoelke.
Under contract law, an offer is a proposal by one party (the offeror) to another party (the offeree) to
enter into a legally binding agreement on specific terms. The acceptance is the offeree's agreement to
the offeror's proposal, creating a mutual assent or meeting of the minds between the parties.
In this case, Morrison made an offer to Thoelke to sell the land by sending him a letter. Thoelke received
the letter and decided to accept the offer by writing a letter back to Morrison stating his acceptance and
intention to buy the land at the price quoted in the offer. Thoelke then mailed the acceptance letter.
Once Thoelke mailed the acceptance letter, it would generally be considered a valid acceptance and
would create a binding contract between Morrison and Thoelke, even if Morrison changed his mind and
withdrew the offer before receiving the acceptance letter. This is because acceptance is effective upon
dispatch, meaning that once Thoelke mailed the acceptance letter, it would be considered accepted and
the contract would be formed, regardless of whether Morrison had received it or not.
Therefore, Thoelke's acceptance letter would likely be considered valid, binding Morrison to the sale of
the land to Thoelke, unless there were any specific circumstances or legal requirements that would
render the acceptance invalid, such as fraud, duress, mistake, or illegality. It's important to note that

3. contract law can vary by jurisdiction, so it's always best to consult with a qualified legal professional for
specific legal advice in your area.