Smunt, an eccentric billionaire, wants the famous portrait artist Casmir Roginsky, to paint a portrait of his mother. To that end he sends an offer in a letter to the artist proposing that Roginsky paint the picture for $75,000. Roginsky receives the offer and responds as follows in a letter the day the offer arrives. "I have had the misfortune of seeing your ugly mother. Painting her portrait would offend my artistic sensabilites." An hour later after reflecting on the state of his finances ( he is broke). Roginsky picks up the phone and calls Smunt and tells him, " I would love to paint your lovely mother's portrait. I accept your generous offer. Oh by the way I sent you a letter, when you receive it just throw it away - no need to open it. Three days later the letter arrives. Smunt reads it and becomes infuriated. He calls Smunt and tells him, I will nver let you near my mother. Please explain the outcome of this case Under both traditional and modern contract law.

Contractual law is a term used to describe the contractual principles governed by modern and traditional factors that manage any type of contractual relationship between two parties, preventing a subordinate relationship between the parties represented in the contract.

In the case shown in the question above, we can explain it based on some of these principles. The first principle applied to this case is the principle of autonomy, which states that an individual has the right and autonomy to hire any professional for a given service as long as he offers a lawful payment for the service. This can be seen when the millionaire chooses a specific painter to paint his mother's picture and offers him a sum of money for this work. This principle also states that the contract can only be signed if the professional accepts the offer. This did not happen at first, as the painter stated that he would never paint the portrait of the millionaire's mother. However, over time the painter changed his mind, but the millionaire no longer wanted the painting to be painted by him.

Another principle that can be applied to this case is the principle of the relativity of the effects of the contract. This principle states that a contract will only be valid if the two parties reach an agreement and express the desire to establish a contractual relationship that meets the needs of the contractor and the contractor. This did not happen in the case above, as both parties disagreed over the contractual relationship that could be established.

dude have you found the answer? i go to connexus as well but i think the answer is prime minister

answer; caravan;