IndexQUESTION 1. 3QUESTION 2. 7List of bibliography 10QUESTION 1.Case issues: Can acceptance of the offer via e-mail be capable of creating contractual relationships? Was there a breach of contract? The matter of the case is governed by contract law. Contractual nature A contract can be defined as “an agreement containing promises made between two or more parties with the intention of creating certain legal and court-enforceable rights and obligations”. (Andy and Douglas, 2013, p.307). While every contract involves an agreement, not all agreements are legally binding and will result in a contract. It must be ascertained whether the agreement between the parties was intended to be considered valid and enforceable by law (contract) or simply an agreement and non-enforceable. The definition also says that agreement is first and foremost a promise or commitment that something will or will not happen in the future. However, to be a contract, a promise must be contractual in nature and therefore a promoter must have legal liability. In the present case David (bidder) accepts an offer via email which was not legally recorded or officially sealed unless Charlie (bidder) and David had agreed to communicate electronically. Therefore, it could only (hypothetically) be a simple contract. A simple contract must contain 3 constituent elements:1. There must be an agreement between the parties. In other words, there must be an offer and an acceptance. Charlie offers to sell his car to David, so he can be an offer. David decides to buy Charlie's car and informs him via email. This could be an acceptance. Under sections 4.8(1) of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth), an acceptance by email is capable of creating legal relationships.2. There must...half of the paper......pillar entrance to the parking lot. Furthermore, he couldn't drive his car back. It is likely that Howard did not have the capacity to refuse the offer. In that situation he had to accept the offer. This means there was unreasonable notice and no options for Howard. It is especially significant that he could be there for the first time and could not know the parking rules. In other words, if he had parked his car in the lot first, he assumed he knew the rules. This means that Howard cannot get money from the lot for the damage to his car. Works Cited Andy, G., & Douglas, F. (2013). Business Law 2013. Australia, Sydney: Pearson Australia.Gibson, A. (2007). Commercial law. Australia, Sydney: Pearson Education Australia. Vickery, R., & Pendleton, W., C. (2006). Australian Commercial Law: Principles and Applications. 5th edition, Australia, NSW 2086: Pearson Education Australia.