Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    Respondent 2

    Uploaded by

    basakev
    No, the parties did not validly conclude the contract based on 3 key reasons: 1) There was still negotiation between the parties and silence does not constitute acceptance. 2) Mr. Chandra's response to Ms. Fauconnier was a counter-offer, not an acceptance, as it contained additional terms like general conditions of sale. 3) The additional terms proposed were material modifications relating to issues like liability, which alter the original offer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Respondent 2

    Uploaded by

    basakev
    7 views1 page
    No, the parties did not validly conclude the contract based on 3 key reasons: 1) There was still negotiation between the parties and silence does not constitute acceptance. 2) Mr. Chandra's response to Ms. Fauconnier was a counter-offer, not an acceptance, as it contained additional terms like general conditions of sale. 3) The additional terms proposed were material modifications relating to issues like liability, which alter the original offer.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    respondent 2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    No, the parties did not validly conclude the contract based on 3 key reasons: 1) There was still negotiation between the parties and silence does not constitute acceptance. 2) Mr. Chandra's response to Ms. Fauconnier was a counter-offer, not an acceptance, as it contained additional terms like general conditions of sale. 3) The additional terms proposed were material modifications relating to issues like liability, which alter the original offer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    7 views1 page

    Respondent 2

    Uploaded by

    basakev
    No, the parties did not validly conclude the contract based on 3 key reasons: 1) There was still negotiation between the parties and silence does not constitute acceptance. 2) Mr. Chandra's response to Ms. Fauconnier was a counter-offer, not an acceptance, as it contained additional terms like general conditions of sale. 3) The additional terms proposed were material modifications relating to issues like liability, which alter the original offer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    I SSUE 2 Have the Parties validly concluded the contract?

    NO

    No, because

    Art 18 (1)Silence or inactivity does not


    Parties were still at the stage of negotiations
    in itself amount to acceptance.

    Present case, Mr.


    Chandra sent a
    counter-offer to Ms. Art. 19 (1) CISG: A reply to an offer which purports to be
    Fauconnier to an acceptance but contains additions, limitations or other
    include the General modifications is a rejection of the offer and constitutes a
    Conditions of Sale
    counter-offer.
    which IS a material
    modification

    Art. 19(3) Additional or different terms relating, among other


    things, to the price, payment, quality and quantity of the goods,
    place and time of delivery, extent of one party?s liability to the
    other or the settlement of disputes are considered to alter the
    terms of the offer materially. (This list is non-exhaustive)

    You might also like