CASE1

On 9 of July 2014, Mr Huan met Mr Minh at a party on Chill Sky Bar and the two of them drank a lot of
alcohol. When they were about to drunk, Mr Huan offered to sell his BMW car to Mr Minh at a price of
USD 150000. Mr Minh Accepted the offer and the contract was signed right at the party with the
witness of all of their friends at that moment.

On the next morning, Mr Minh realized that the actual price of Mr Huan’s car is just USD 100000. Feeling
that he was deceived by Mr Huan, Mr Minh wrote a letter to the court and requested the court to
declare the transaction invalid with the reason that both of them were drinking alcohol at the time the
contract was signed.

1. Please advise Mr Minh whether his reason is valid or not

If Mr Huan is at the age of 17 when he signed the contract with Mr Minh, the car was a gift which Mr
Huan was given at his 17 birthday on the 1 of July 2014.

2. The question is does Mr Huan have any rights to conduct the transaction at the age of 17?

Assume that Mr Huan had full civil capacity to sell the car. But the car was actually belong to his father.

3. Does Mr Huan father has the right to claim the car back from Mr Minh, given that mr Minh don’t
have any intention on returning the car now?

ANSWER.

1. There is not enough evidence proving that Both Mr Huan and Mr Minh were drunk at the time
they signed the contract. ( In fact they only about to drunk). Therefore Mr Minh reason is not
valid. (use article 133 to explain the case)
2. The car was Mr Huan property as it was given to him on his 17 birthday. Therefore he has the
right to conduct the transaction without the representative. ( art 20 could be use to explain the
case)
3. Mr Huan father has the rights. Art 257

CASE 2

Please provide short answers to the questions with reference to relevant stipulations of law.
Please write not more than 100 words for each answer.]

Ladocafé Corporation (“Ladocafe”), having its head office in Lam Dong province, sent a letter
on 5th August, 2012 to Hong Ha Limited Company (“Hong Ha”) in Ho Chi Minh City. The
letter, inter alia, stated that Ladocafe is willing to supply 100 tons of coffee to Hong Ha at the
price of 35,000,000 VND per ton, payment would be made through bank transfer before delivery
and the delivery to Hong Ha Company’s warehouse within 1 week after payment would be free
of charge. After receiving this offer on 7th August 2012, Hong Ha sent back a letter to respond to
this offer, in which it said Hong Ha would accept the offer of Ladocafe but suggested payment to
be made upon goods delivery. The responding letter of Hong Ha was signed and stamped by its
vice director.

1. Was the letter dated 5th August 2012 of Ladocafe an offer? Explain? (5 marks)

- Yes, it was an offer. It suggested for type of goods, quantity, price, method of payment,
delivery and directed to a definite offeree (Article 390 of the Civil Code 2005)

Before Ladocafe received such letter of response from Hong Ha, when there is another company
that offered to buy coffee with considerably higher price, on 8th August 2012, Ladocafé sent
Hong Ha the second letter stating that it would revoke the offer.

2. Could Ladocafé revoke its offer? Explain? (5 marks)

Ladocafe could not revoke this offer, because the letter of revocation shall take effect only when
it is received by the offeree before the offeree replies to accept the offer to enter into the contract.
(Art. 393 of the Civil Code 2005)

Assuming that the contract between Ladocafé and Hong Ha was valid, during the
implementation of the contract, the price of coffee in the market fluctuated frequently. Hong Ha
informed Ladocafé that it had not yet used up its remaining coffee to manufacture and export,
therefore, it wished to delay to perform its obligation to pay to Ladocafé until 2nd February
2013.

3. Could Hong Ha make this proposal? Explain? (5 marks)

Yes, Hong Ha could make this proposal to delay its obligation to pay to a new due date as long
as Ladocafe would accept this suggestion.