End term; Fundamentals of Private Law
Part I; 10 Short Answer Questions (10 marks)
Please answer the following questions in around 3-4 sentences.
1. John wanted to sell his bakery to Paul for 500,000 EU. They were negotiating. Paul went
out and took out a loan with a 5% interest/month. On the day that they had to conclude
the contract, Paul found out that John had sold the business to a third party. Paul was now
stuck with paying interest on a loan he did not need. Could a suit be successful for Paul
against John in the Netherlands?
This question concerns pre-contractual liability because the contract was not concluded yet.
From the Plas v Valburg case (1982) we can see the three phases of negotiation (shows an
interpretation of civil code, binding). The “free negotiation” phase has already passed since
Paul got a loan to buy the bakery. Therefore, it would have been stage 2 or 3 of negotiations,
2 can give John remedies and if it were stage 3 the contract could not have been broken off
since Paul entered it in good faith. So, yes it would be successful for Paul to sue John because
it would result in damages or the enforcement of the contract.
2. Pierre, a Frenchman, bought a computer from Computer Mania, a store selling computers
and other technology located in Paris. He signed a standard contract issued by Computer
Mania to pay the computer in installments with 2% interest per month on the price of the
computer. In small writing at the bottom of the contract, it said that in case of a return,
even if the computer malfunctioned, only the principal would be repaid but not the
interest. The computer did not work after a few months and the principal was returned to
Pierre but Computer Mania kept the interest. Pierreseeks your legal advice. Briefly
describe if Pierre has any legal protections in this case.
Since Pierre signed the contract it might be difficult to win this case. However, we could say
that the contract was unenforceable, because of the lack of fairness. The EU directive on
UTCC (hard law) which is binding for member states, states in article 3 that a contract that is
not individually negotiated is unfair when there is a detriment to the consumer, which is also
a weaker party contract. This is the case here because Game Mania should be held
responsible for selling a product that turned out to be malfunctioning after a while and Pierre
should not have to lose money because of the malfunctioning product he bought.
3. Jill decided to prank her colleague Johann in their home state of California. Jill told Johann
that her husband had called and told her that he had fallen from the roof and to come and
bring ice cream. Johann ran out of the office to her car. All the colleagues laughed. Johann
was distressed and humiliated. Could Johann sue Jill? On what grounds?
The case Wilkinson v Downtown (1897) presents this situation, however, it is not binding in
this case because it is English precedent. But if this precedent were to be in the US, we can
see that in the US there is a theory that says that extreme and outrageous behaviour that
causes, in this case, distress, is not permitted. Therefore, Johann can sue Jill for damages on
the grounds of negligence. Jill did not intend this harm but is liable under negligence for it.
1
Part I; 10 Short Answer Questions (10 marks)
Please answer the following questions in around 3-4 sentences.
1. John wanted to sell his bakery to Paul for 500,000 EU. They were negotiating. Paul went
out and took out a loan with a 5% interest/month. On the day that they had to conclude
the contract, Paul found out that John had sold the business to a third party. Paul was now
stuck with paying interest on a loan he did not need. Could a suit be successful for Paul
against John in the Netherlands?
This question concerns pre-contractual liability because the contract was not concluded yet.
From the Plas v Valburg case (1982) we can see the three phases of negotiation (shows an
interpretation of civil code, binding). The “free negotiation” phase has already passed since
Paul got a loan to buy the bakery. Therefore, it would have been stage 2 or 3 of negotiations,
2 can give John remedies and if it were stage 3 the contract could not have been broken off
since Paul entered it in good faith. So, yes it would be successful for Paul to sue John because
it would result in damages or the enforcement of the contract.
2. Pierre, a Frenchman, bought a computer from Computer Mania, a store selling computers
and other technology located in Paris. He signed a standard contract issued by Computer
Mania to pay the computer in installments with 2% interest per month on the price of the
computer. In small writing at the bottom of the contract, it said that in case of a return,
even if the computer malfunctioned, only the principal would be repaid but not the
interest. The computer did not work after a few months and the principal was returned to
Pierre but Computer Mania kept the interest. Pierreseeks your legal advice. Briefly
describe if Pierre has any legal protections in this case.
Since Pierre signed the contract it might be difficult to win this case. However, we could say
that the contract was unenforceable, because of the lack of fairness. The EU directive on
UTCC (hard law) which is binding for member states, states in article 3 that a contract that is
not individually negotiated is unfair when there is a detriment to the consumer, which is also
a weaker party contract. This is the case here because Game Mania should be held
responsible for selling a product that turned out to be malfunctioning after a while and Pierre
should not have to lose money because of the malfunctioning product he bought.
3. Jill decided to prank her colleague Johann in their home state of California. Jill told Johann
that her husband had called and told her that he had fallen from the roof and to come and
bring ice cream. Johann ran out of the office to her car. All the colleagues laughed. Johann
was distressed and humiliated. Could Johann sue Jill? On what grounds?
The case Wilkinson v Downtown (1897) presents this situation, however, it is not binding in
this case because it is English precedent. But if this precedent were to be in the US, we can
see that in the US there is a theory that says that extreme and outrageous behaviour that
causes, in this case, distress, is not permitted. Therefore, Johann can sue Jill for damages on
the grounds of negligence. Jill did not intend this harm but is liable under negligence for it.
1
