In: Economics
a). As it is informed that Mike had merely given an advertisement for selling his car. Which clearly means it is an invitation to treat , where the seller has placed his desire to sell a commodity and it is a non personal way of communication which Mike has taken.
b). Pertaining to the advertisement made by Mike (seller)to sell his car for $5000. Due to advertisement Barry (buyer) was interested in purchasing the car from Mike at the given amount of $5000, as Barry had given his offer against the invitation but also Barry have a condition against the payment , that he would pay in five installments of $1000 each , here in this line of context the buyer agreed for the price but gave a condition for the payment.
c). As Mike agreed for the payment from Barry in terms of installment. But Mike had a counter offer towards the payment of Barry , as Mike wanted the payment in lumpsum and barry wanted to pay in installments so Mike gave an offer for paying six installments of $1000 each as the payment was not lumpsum.
d). As against the payment in installments was initiated and also mike gave a counter offer of $1000 each for six installments which is in total $6000. Even though the final amount was $1000 more than barry had estimated but also he's paying in installments of $1000 each. As Barry was pretty much interested in the offer so he agreed Mike's offer.
1a). Breach of law refers violation of a law, obligation, or promise. breach of the close. The common law trespass of entering another's land either unlawfully or without authorization. breach of duty. The failure to perform a legal or moral obligation owed to a person or to the public. In this case although while agreeing to terms of offer and acceptance Mike dint sell it to barry. But in this case it won't be considered as breach of law as in actual there has not been any formal written communication or an agreement on papers , rather it was only mere verbal communication as both party dint enter into any agreement.
1b). The major reason for theoretical cause of action was lack of formal communication which is an agreement of law was missging even after both Mike and barry agreed to the terms of condition of payments.
2). Although later on there was a rejection of the offer between Mike and barry. As Mike sold the car to Catherine. Keeping in mind the relevant information of the case it is clearly understood that Mike and barry did not enter in to an agreement to sell the car ,even though both had agreed for their terms and conditions , as for any matter to be taken in the court first and foremost there needs to be written agreement on law of paper stating the condition of both parties , failure to present that there barry would not be able to sue Mike in court of law.