hi Raz..do we actually follow the same pattern????it is so horrible,is it mandatory to add headings and write so many things..
and do let me know from where did you get these cases?
well i did find a case and wants to share it with you.just have a look and guide me ,is following way of solving the case also correct or not.it is very simple and without any heading..and there are questions in past papers like this too..



Question:
Alvin runs a business selling expensive cars. Last Monday he mistakenly placed a notice on one car indicating that it
was for sale for £5,000 when in fact its real price was £25,000. Bert later noticed the sign and, recognising what a
bargain it was, immediately indicated to Alvin that he accepted the offer and would take the car for the indicated
amount. Alvin, however, told Bert that there had been a mistake and that the true price of the car was £25,000. Bert
insisted that he was entitled to get the car at the lower price, and when Alvin would not give it to him at that price
Bert said that he would sue Alvin.
After Bert had left, Alvin changed the price on the car to £25,000 and subsequently Cat came in and said she would
like to buy the car, but that she would have to arrange finance.
On Tuesday Del came by and offered Alvin the full £25,000 cash there and then and Alvin sold it to him.
Required:
Advise Alvin, Bert, Cat and Del as to their rights and liabilities in the law of contract.

Answer:
This question requires candidates to analyse the problem scenario from the perspective of contract law paying particular regard to
the rules relating to: invitation to treat, offers, and option contracts. The scenario involves three distinct cases which should be
dealt with in turn in applying the following rules of contract law.
Alvin and Bert
The price notice on the car did not constitute a legal offer, it was merely an invitation to treat. As such it is not an offer to sell but
merely an invitation to others to make offers. The point of this is that the person extending the invitation is not bound to accept
any offers made to them as may be seen in Fisher v Bell (1961) in which it was held that having switch-blade knives in the window
of a shop was not the same as offering them for sale. Consequently Bert is not in a position to sue Alvin.
Alvin and Cat
An offeror may withdraw their offer at any time before it has been accepted and once revoked it is no longer open to the offeree to
accept the original offer. Also a promise to keep an offer open is only binding where there is a separate contract to that effect. This
is known as an option contract, and the offeree must provide additional consideration for the promise to keep the offer open. If not,
then the offeror can simply withdraw the offer under the normal rules relating to revocation of offers.
As Cat did not provide any consideration to form an option contract, Alvin is not bound to wait for her to return and can sell the
car to anyone else if he so chooses.
Alvin and Del
This is a perfectly ordinary contract. The fact that Alvin had previously contracted not to sell it, does not affect Del and he is entitled
to take good title to the car.