It is crucial to keep in mind that rules of law are the sources of issues (i.e., the intersection of the facts with the relative words and phrases of a rule of law cause an issue to arise); they do not dispose of issues.

The best means of explaining how to discuss an issue is by asking you to read the example and the five student responses to it which follow.

Example

A offered in writing to sell his used Maruti car to B, for Rs. 90,000. B advised A that he was very interested in buying the car, and that he would advise A of his decision within a week. Five days later, B tendered to A the Rs. 90,000 payment.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

However, A stated to B at that time that he had decided not to sell the vehicle.

Pertinent Principle of Law:-An offer expires after a reasonable time where no time is specified by the offeror for acceptance.

Student Answer I

Did A’s offer terminate prior to B’s acceptance?

ADVERTISEMENTS:

An offer expires after a reasonable period of time where no time is specified by the offeror for acceptance. A will contend that a reasonable period of time has expired because the amount involved (Rs. 90,000) is relatively minimal and it is well known that persons desiring to sell Used cars ordinarily desire to consummate the sale in as short a time period as possible. B, however, would argue in rebuttal that Rs. 90,000 is ordinarily a large snip of money for his age (a fact about which A was aware) and that he had indicated to A that it would take a week to make his decision. A’s arguments are probably stronger, and therefore the offer lapsed prior to B’s attempted acceptance.

Student Answer II

Lapse

A might contend that his offer lapsed prior to B’s attempted acceptance (an offer expires after a reasonable period of time when no time has been specified by the offeror) since Rs. 90,000 is a small amount and persons selling their used cars usually want to do so in a short time. Although B could argue in rebuttal that Rs. 90,000 is a lot of money to a young man and he indicated that it would take a week to decide, A should prevail.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Student Answer III

A should be able to successfully contend that a reasonable period of time expired to B’s attempted acceptance since Rs. 90,000 is a small amount and persons desiring to sell used cars ordinarily want to do so quickly; even though B might have argued in rebuttal that Rs. 90,000 is a lot of money to a young man and he had advised A that it would take a week for him to decide.

Student Answer IV

Did A’s offer terminate prior to B’s acceptance?

ADVERTISEMENTS:

An offer expires after a reasonable period of time where no time is specified by the offeror for acceptance. Since the amount involved is relatively small (Rs. 90,000) and persons desiring to sell used cars usually want to do so quickly, five days was too long a period to accept. Therefore, a reasonable period of time had passed and A’s offer terminated prior to B’s acceptance.

Student Answer V

Did A’s offer terminate prior to B’s acceptance?

An offer expires after a reasonable period of time where no time is specified by the offeror for acceptance. B will contend that five days is a reasonable period of time A will contend that five days is not a reasonable period of time. A should prevail.”

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Let’s examine Student Answer V first. It would receive the minimal amount of points. It represents the epitome of the “overly conclusionary” discussion. While Answer V communicates to the evaluer that there is potential issue with respect to whether the offer lapsed prior to the offeree’s purported acceptance, the evaluer can only guess why the student-writer believes this to be the case. The answer does not explain to the evaluer why there is a question as to whether a reasonable time did (or did not) expire prior to the attempted acceptance. This is because absolutely no facts of the hypothetical are included in the analysis of the issue.

The key to arguing an issue is pretending you’re in front of a judge and he/ she is asking you, as the Advocate for each side, why he/she should resolve the issue in favour of your client. In this case, the court would be asking the Advocate for each side, “Why should it conclude that five days was (or was not) a reasonable a period of time within which to accept the offeror’s offer?” Student Answer V does not address this inquiry. It’s as if when the judge asked each of the Advocates why five days was (or was not) a reasonable period of time within which to accept the offerer’s offer, (1)A stated : “Five days is not a reasonable period of time because five days is not a reasonable,” and (2) B stated : “Five days is a reasonable period of time because five days is reasonable.” Thus, neither side has actually advanced reasons why five days, under the circumstances described in the hypothetical, was (or was not) a reasonable period of time for B to have accepted A’s offer.

Student Answer IV is far superior to Student Answer V, but is still too conclusionary. Notice that after the applicable rule of law is indicated in the initial sentence, the balance of the discussion is devoted to justifying the writer’s conclusion. This student has obviously concluded that five days was not a reasonable period of time within which to accept A’s offer. While making reference to the facts which support A’s contention that five days was not a reasonable period of time within which to accept his offer. Student Answer IV makes no mention of the factual arguments which might have been asserted by B to persuade the fact finder that five days was a reasonable period of time for acceptance under the circumstances. Thus, the fatal flaw with respect to Student Answer IV is that the discussion belies the issue statement which precedes it.

It is crucial to remember that a legal point is not in issue unless there is an argument on each side of it. A evaluer reading student Answer IV would be apprehensive that this student would, (1) if he/she represented A, assure A that his offer had terminated prior to B’s purported acceptance, or (2) if he/she represented B, unequivocally advise B that it would be pointless to commence an action against A (since A’s offer had lapsed prior to B’s attempted acceptance).

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In either case, the advice given would not be sound. There is at least the possibility that fact finder could resolve the issue in favour of either side. Student Answer IV, despite the initial issue statement, does not effectively communicate the existence of a legal controversy to the evaluer.

Student Answer I would receive the maximum possible points. It utilizes the entire hypothetical by indicating how each side’s Advocate would assert the facts which are most advantageous to his/her client, the evaluer can easily see that the student-writer recognizes that whether acceptance within five days was (or was not) a reasonable period of time is at issue, since the arguments which each side’s Advocate would advance to persuade the fact finder to resolve the legal problem in his/her favour are clearly set forth. Finally, the concluding sentence is not unequivocal. The use of the word “probably” acknowledges to the evaluer that if a legal point is at issue, there is at least the possibility that either side could be successful.