Case 1The problems began when Ravi told Alice that he would be willing to sell her his house, which she had rented from him as a student, after she graduated. An interesting question is whether what Ravi said constitutes a genuine offer or not. Should his “willingness” to sell be understood as a definitive fact or as an offer to do business at a specific time, as an invitation to negotiate? Another possible problem is that Ravi communicated his willingness to sell his house to her 4 months before her graduation and Alice gave her "acceptance" via mail about 4 months after her graduation. This left Alice about 8 months to consider the possible deal. Was Ravi's deadline Alice's graduation in April or a reasonable time thereafter, or was acceptance open until Alice found suitable employment? Other problems arise from the method of acceptance, which took place in the form of a letter via post, making it a non-instant form of communication (McInnes, Kerr, VanDuzer, 2011, p.167-169). This form of communication involves a significant delay in acceptance. As a result, Ravi received Alice's letter a day after entering into a contract for the property in question with a developer. Did Ravi intend for the price to match the market value of the house at the time of his graduation in April? Did Alice hold out until the value of the house plummeted? While the details are vague, it's possible that there was no true meeting of the minds in this situation. Ravi may have meant that he would entertain doing business with her in April, with April market values, while Alice assumed that Ravi would keep the offer open until he found employment. The courts may also have to interpret what Ravi meant when he told A... in the middle of the document... the contract in question. These issues, combined with the possibility that Sylvia was using her aunt's fear of going to her nursing home against her, strengthen Millie's legal position. If Millie is able to read and understand the contract in the future, possibly through a clearer state of mind, she can and should seek her own independent legal advice should she choose to transfer the land (McInnes, Kerr, VanDuzer, 2011, p 242 ). In any case, based on this information, the contract appears to be void, voidable and unenforceable. Works Cited McInnes, M., Kerr, I., VanDuzer, A. (2011) Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business. (3rd ed.) Toronto, ON: Pearson Canada Inc. LGST 369: Study Guide Part 2. (2011). Athabasca University. Retrieved December 29, 2007, from http://http://sals.lms.athabascau.ca/course/view.php?id=47&topic=2