Critically examine the law in relation to instantaneous communications in contract law

There are two questions weighted at 25% each of the module mark and both
must be answered. Each part is weighted equally. You should use roughly half
the word count of 4,000 words on each full question.
There is nothing in the criminal law which either question turns on – i.e., it is all civil law.
Question 1
City Contractors Ltd (‘CCL’) closed down its Oldcastle trade counter and storage building in August 2021 due a big drop for building products in the area.
Northern Builders plc (‘NBL’) sent an email to City Contractors Ltd on 2 September 2021 which said: “We would like to purchase all of the outstanding stock and equipment previously held in the Oldcastle branch from you; we have identified specific funds for this purpose. Please state lowest acceptable asking price as soon as possible.”
City Contractors Ltd replied by post on 3 September 2021 stating, “Regarding your enquiry concerning our stock and equipment. We have estimated that this has a market value of £150,000 although for a quick sale to complete by 30 September, we can let this go at £125,000.”
Northern Builders plc replied by email on 6 September 2021, stating, “That is
agreeable to us, we accept. Please finalise the sale by emailing our Head Office before midday on 10 September 2021.”
City Contractors Ltd decided to confirm the sale by trusting the post. A letter of affirmation was posted to Northern Builders plc Head Office on 10 September 2021. It did not reach the Head Office until 13 September 2021 by which time Northern Builders no longer wanted to purchase the equipment. In fact, at 7.30 am on 10 September, Northern Builders had left a message on City Contractors’ answerphone indicating that it no longer wished to purchase the equipment.
(1) Critically examine the law in relation to instantaneous communications in
contract law; and
(2) Appraise with reasons whether a contract has been created.
Question 2
Duckdown Contracting Ltd (‘DCL’) provides insulation material and fabrications for residential construction projects to ensure that the requirements under Part L2a
Building Regulations are met, along with the expected forthcoming changes in 2022.
On one project under way, Cotswold’s Studios Ltd (‘CSL’) has started to install
fabricated duck feather cavity wall boards into the business studio timber framed pods but it is noticeable that the panels which had been ordered are too short by up to 6 centimetres. Duckdown Contracting Ltd has been sub-contracted on a manufacture, supply and fit contract given a proprietary interlocking system which it had designed.
Further a stacked pile of delivered panels around 5 metres high close to an adjoining neighboring property boundary has shifted/moved and caused damage to the old wooden 1.8 close-board fence owned by the adjoining owner. Whilst dry, the weather has seen some windy days over the past week. As a result, several insulation wall boards have split open and loose duck-down has and continues to blow over the neighboring property (owned by Mr Sparrow). Part of the view from Mr Sparrow’s house has been impeded by the tall stack.
(1) Examine what claim could be brought against the supplier (DCL) for the
incorrectly supplied and installed insulation boards, what would have to be
proved and what defenses the supplier could advance to avoid liability;
(2) If an adjudicator was appointed under the supply and fit contract, explain the primary contents of his award and how costs would be dealt with; and
(3) Appraise what claim the neighboring owner (Mr Sparrow) could bring against Cotswold’s Homes Ltd for the fence damage and spilled duck-down and
determine what possible defenses could be advanced by CHL.