I’m not sure about especially this case, but I would read such kind of cases in Contract Law classes of law schools from the USA, England, Canada, New Sealand, Australia, some insular territories and other countries of common law. Reading this text was rather difficult for me. It is hard readable text. Particularly sentences 1, 8-10, 20, 28, 31. Hard words are “dispose the objection”, “sufficient mutuality of obligation”, :court was correct in holding that:, withdrawn without notice, items of merchandise for sale, disallowed, at the appropriate counter, finding, house rule. I think such expressions are elements of court’s language, some kind of clericalism. Several sentenses consist of many parts and it is hard to catch connection each to another. There are 10-20 rarely used words with multiplied meaning, and it is hard to guess definite sense from the context. But second time reading was easier, since I knew those words. I’m not sure if I understand the law,, because the only law I found is called “test”. If that “test” is law or rule – I may say, thatt I understand law in that case. The law is .