Business Law Section A a) This case is under the incapacity-mentally unsound and intoxicated persons. Incapacity is someone that unable to manage the physical or mental of others’ events. According to Contract Law, Incapability, “ As the mentally unsound and intoxicated persons; if the person suffering from the disability is incapable of understanding the nature of the contract, the other party knows or ought to know it, and the contract is voidable.” The plaintiff was Arthur’s guardian and the defendant was Katrina. In this case Arthur sold the land to Katrina as $5000. Arthur was minor and he was not in clear mental but he was looking good. So Katrina bought the land. After that, Arthur’s guardian knew about the deal and complained to invalidate the contract and kept the land back. However the guardian of Arthur’s will win this trial. Because the guardian could proof Arthur was insane. That’s why Katrina might give back the land and the Arthur might pay back $5000 to Katrina. There was a similar case was in 1989; Che Som bet Yip v Maha Pte Ltd. In this case, the third plaintiff who is mentally unsound executive pledged to banks, the court held that, in this case, the bank should have known of his disability, so the mortgage was shelved. b) Yes, Kristin has the right not to sell to lan. This case is counter offer. Counter offer kills the first offer. The offeror is Kristin and Lan is offeree in the first offer but Lan didn’t agree about $5000 land and bargain to $4000, the offeror and offeree are exchanged the places. The offeree (Lan) didn’t agree about the offeror’s offer. So Kristin qualified that didn’t sell the land to Lan. Moreover, there were not acceptance between them and also the contract. As the cite case of Hyde v Wrench 1840 is similar with this case. In Hyde v Wrench case, the facts were Wrench is willing to sell his estate Hyde 1200