Issue: The question here is whether there was a valid contract between the buyer and the seller. If this case goes to court, who will likely win? Assuming the buyer is successful in his suit against the seller, what damages is the buyer likely to receive when:• The seller agreed to the buyer sending him a check for $5,000 and then to pay the balance before November 1.• The buyer then sent a letter to the seller. a check for $5,000 later that day.• The buyer plans to borrow $20,000 from the investor to purchase the van.• The investor agrees to loan the buyer $20,000.• When the he buyer called the seller to pick up the van, the seller refused and said someone offered him $35,000 for the van. The seller has not yet cashed the buyer's check. • The buyer claims that he will not be able to start his courier service if he has not received the van. • Later, the seller offered to deposit the check and give him the van if the buyer paid the seller $20,000 now. plus $400 per month for 25 months. Rules: The rule that will govern the first question would be contract law because it seeks to enforce a promise. To form a valid contract, there must be the following essential elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to be bound, reciprocity, capacity and legality. In this case, when considering the issue between the two parties, the buyer would be the one performing the promise and the seller would be the promisee. In Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991), the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages upon proof of breach of contract. A plaintiff is not entitled to be better off through an award of damages. In Hyde v. Clé (1840), Clé had rejected Hyde's counteroffer and was not obliged to sell. The rule that will govern the second question would be that of remedies because it orders...... middle of paper..... .ail against the buyer if this matter goes to court because there was only 'an oral communication between the two parties by telephone but no written acceptance from the seller. Assuming the buyer prevails in their lawsuit against the seller. The buyer is likely to receive special damages for the loss of $1,200 on the cards, flyers and cell phone, as well as the profit of $50,000, because he would not be able to start his courier service without the van. It could be legitimate that there is a valid contract, so the seller is obligated to sell the van for $25,000, which both parties agreed to at the beginning. ReferencesCiro, T., Goldwasser, V., Verma, R. (2011). Law and Business (3rd ed.) Oxford University Press. Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) Hyde v Key (1840) Robinson v Harman (1848) Sweeney, B., O'Reilly, J., Coleman, A. (2010). Commercial Law (2nd ed.) LexixNexis Butterworths.