Posted: December 11th, 2022

Chapter # 8 Case # 1

Student’s Name
Group #
Chapter # 8 Case # 1
Facts: Kenneth Hiebel, an individual who owned the Triple R-Bar Ranch in Idaho was emailed an offer by Lindbergh-Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation. The content of the email was as follows: “Kindly consider this our offer to buy twenty-thousand acres of your 61,200-acre ranch land located near Harrington, Idaho.” The price of our offering is between 60,000 dollars and 65,000 dollars per acre. Kindly respond soon.”
Issue/Problem: Does the email that Lindbergh- Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation sent to Kenneth Hiebel have the requirements to constitute it as a valid offer?
Summary of Law: A valid offer has three main elements. First, a valid offer is communicated. The individual making the offer should communicate his offer to the other party who may then decide to accept or refuse the offer. Second, a valid offer must create legal relations. In his/her communication, the offerer must show that they intend to be bound by the offer. Lastly, an offer that is valid must have definite and specific terms. The vital terms of the deal, like manner of acceptance, price, and timing must be stated clearly.
Decision/Reason: Yes. The email has the requirements to constitute it as a valid offer. This is because it has various elements of a valid offer. For instance, the email was used to communicate an offer. This is demonstrated when Lindbergh-Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation sent Hiebel an email offering to buy land from him. Also, the email intended to create legal relations. The corporation stated that it intended to buy the land between $60,000 and $65,000/acre. Lastly, the email had definite and specific terms. The corporation stated that it offered to purchase 20,000 acres of Hiebel’s 61,200-acre ranch land located near Harrington, Idaho, and the price offered was between 60,000 and 65,000 dollars per acre.

Name: Group #
Chapter # 8 Case # 10
Facts: Loral Corporation was awarded a contract by the U.S. government to produce radar sets. Austin Instrument was subcontracted by Loral to manufacture precision parts to be utilized in the radar sets. In the middle of production, Austin informed Loral that it not produce and deliver any more parts not until Loral consented to paying Austin a good deal more than initially agreed upon. Since Loral could not get similar parts in time from any other firm, she consented to the increase in price. After Austin had delivered the radar sets, Loral took legal action against Austin and requested the court to cancel the increase in price.
Issue/Problem: Did the court grant Loral’s request to cancel Austin’s price increase.
Summary of Law: Under the law, economic duress, as with other kinds of duress is viewed as a contractual vice when it forces one party to give up its own free will.
Decision/Reason: Yes. The court granted Loral’s request to cancel Austin’s price increase. This is because the court found Austin culpable of economic duress. As stated by the court: “it is evident that the threat of Austin Instrument to cease delivering the parts unless Loral accepted the price increase-took away Loral’s free will.” From this statement it is clear that the court believed that Loral was faced with an emergency and was deprived of free will. Loral was at risk of considerable penalties if it failed to finish its underlying contract and risked losing future business, thus agreeing to the price increase. As such, the court was justified to cancel the price increase.