Create Contract Assignment Help
In the present case, it is identified that tenders for the supply of the green would be accepted by the University. The tender is expected to close on 1st June and the tenders are an invitation in which the party can create contract with anyone offering the best price. The tender advertisement is not an offer to the parties but an invitation. The parties interested in the contract have the opportunity of approaching the company by presenting relevant quotations. The present case scenario states that they had hand delivered the Green land tender through the tender box. The university received the tender letter on 17th May through Enviro though it had been posted on 15th May. On 30th Many, the Plan Forever tender was posted and the University received it on 2nd June. The tenders were then put into the tender box. These tender letters that the respective companies had provided was regarded as offers.
After the companies had made the offers, the University could accept them. The case states that tenders that Enviro offered was not present during the time of decision-making; hence, this absence of documents would hinder the acceptance of the tender. As the quality of the services and products mentioned in the tender, whom Greenland had provided, gave a reflection of a lack of certainty, the University did not accept the tender. This gave a picture about the tenders stating that those which the company had provided are offers and do not suggest their acceptance by the University. The offers are declared to be given as a presentation within the specified time of 1st June. However, it has been observed that the Plant Forever had made the offer after the deadline, hence, it cannot be used for invalidation of the invitation terms to offer. However, the University accepted the same due to best available alternative for them (Khoury and Yamouni, 2009).
One thing that must be considered here is that after the post makes an order, this order will remain valid only till it is delivered to the concerned party and not till the date of its posting. This consideration suggests the offer, which Plan Forver had made cannot be regarded as a valid offer. In case of acceptance of the offer by the University, it can be said the offer will not remain valid because lapse of time has expired the validity of the offer. It must also be noted that any kinds of contract is not created through the acceptance. This suggests that Plant Forever cannot be held responsible for making supplies to the University as per promised terms of the offer because no contract has been created. Hence, the University can say that it has not accepted any offer for creating contract. However, the University can make offers officially to any one of those three companies for the same reason for accepting it in order to establish an enforceability of the offer (Monahan and Carr-Gregg, 2007).
The case states that the shoe company, the Footloose Pty Ltd had published a notice declaring that the organisation will offer a percentage of discount on bulk order made in the purchase of latest Italian Shoes. The advertisement contained the contact number and other details of the Sale Manager and was published on 1st October. On 2nd October, the Famous Footwear had sent a fax to the shoe company sending them an order for buying 500 pairs of shoes for $2000 for a hundred pairs. It was mentioned by the company that they would later provide the details of delivery location. This suggests that the fax which the Famous Footwear had made would be regarded as the offer for purchasing the advertised shoes. The posted advertisement is regarded only as an invitation for the offer. In this context, Footloose Pty Ltd can only ask the interested buyer, here the Famous Footwear for making the suited offer in order to start the respective negotiations. Here, the statement giving notification of the possibility of creating contract with the best offeror is regarded as the advertisement.
A large variety of regional stores was included in the Jame’s Shoes. The store had sent a fax on 4th October, which states that they are looking to buy 2000 pairs of sandals bit the total billing cost must not exceed $30,000 dollars even after including the delivery charge and the GST. This fax of the Jame’s Shoes was regarded as an offer since it is a response to the invitation to offer. The offer contained the details in terms of number of sandals to me bought along with the price that was to be charged for the purchase. This offer also has the features of being regarded as primary offer allowing negotiations and counter offer because the phrase ‘please advise’ is present at the end of the offer (Paterson, 2011).
On 6th October, James of the company James’s Shoes had received a fax from Ms Simone, which stated that James will be able to purchase the desired number of shoes from Footloose, however, it will cost $30,000 without the delivery cost. On 10th October, James received the fax and Simone called up James to state the counter offer and forward the copy of the offer from 8th October. In response, James stated that the company is ready to receive the shoes as per the decided terms from the Footloose warehouse. It is to me noted here that this communication between the two parties had occurred only through fax.
It can be said that the Footloose have proposed the invitation to offer and Jame’s Shoes responded to it on 6th October giving it the status of an offer. Footloose had negotiated this offer which James had made through making a counter offer presented to James. This counter offer had also occurred through fax. However, just to ascertain the acceptance of the offer by James, Footloose had again sent a letter after having a telephonic conversation with James. James notified that the accept the Footloose offer and is also agreed to receive delivery as per the letter specifications.
The case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball provides a clear picture of the distinction between a counter offer and an offer. It states that an advertisement was provided the company for selling smoke ball that promise of curing influenza. The offer also said that in case of failure in curing, the affected can sue them for damages that have been deposited in the bank under the specified account name. This is not regarded as an invitation to offer but an offer itself. This is because it had clearly discussed the effects of both negative and positive performance; it has also shown the intent of being bound within the contract with the product buyer. This offer was similar to a unilateral contract since the party accepting the offer had to perform the required action for enforcing the contract. Mrs.Carlill faced no positive outcome after suing the smoke ball and consequently claimed for the damage. However, company did not accept the claim because the company was not informed about Mrs. Carlill’s acceptance of the offer. The court however, decided that since the offer was made to the world, there is no need for the accepting party inform the acceptance and perform the act of enforceability. As Mrs.Carlill performed the same, she became entitled to receive the claim amount as the contract had promised (Willmott,Christensen and Butler, 2005).
Create Contract Assignment Help
In this case, Richard Anderson is described as a chemist who had successfully achieved collaboration with grants, government contracts and scholarships. He had been working with a lab under a five-year contract that was to expire on 30th June. In the meantime, he had received an offer from arrival lab for leaving his job and joining there to work and be posted as the Chief Chemist. Richard had a great willingness to accept the offer, however, he was intrigued with the thought that his wife would need to change her job and his children would have to change schools. On 1st March, he approached his boss and discussed about the offer. His job said that in order to succeed, the lab requires his presence and his present designation is highly appreciated in the company. On getting assurance and appreciation the decided to turn down the offer and stated to the rival lab that he does not want to cause any kinds of troubles to his family (Khoury and Yamouni, 2009).
After some months, Richard lost his job because the Chief Chemist of his lab, warren felt that Richard’s position in the lab is not anymore required citing the reasons of liquidity issues and the have been sacked. Richard at present is devoid of job and the position in the rival lab is also not more available. The market for hiring chemist is also inactive and Richard was finding it difficult to get hold of a job. He had to then unwillingly take up a job at the university. The University offered him a much lower pay scale as compared to his earnings in the private practice. Family expenses have also come up as an issue now because of his low income.
In this context, it can be said that the discussion, which Richard had with his lab Chief is just a promise for extension of his contract due to an appreciation of his work but not an entire contract itself. When the contract reached the time of renewal, it got terminated as a result of downsizing issues. This discussion acxted as a promise and increased the motivation for Richard to work harder in his current position and refuse the offer made by the rival lab. In this aspect, it can be pointed out that the action was the result of the made promise, thereby leading to the decision. In this case, the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel can be applied to parties that participated in the discussion. According to this doctrine, if a party makes a promise to another party and of the promise is effective enough to make a party take an important decision, it is bound to fulfill the made promise. If the promise is liable to influence another party in taking essential decisions, the party must fulfill the promise. In the present context, richard has been influenced to take the decision by the promise made by the lab chief regarding the requirement of his position in the company. Hence, following the principles of the doctrine, Warren is bounded by its terms and Richard’s term must be extended when Richard had taken the drastic decision of refusing the offer. If the term is not extended by Warren, Richard should be compensated for suffered loss due to non-performance of the promise (Monahan and Carr-Gregg, 2007).
In the Walton’s Stores (Interstate) Ltd vs Maher case, the two parties, Maher and Walton had undergone a negotiation for property lease. The contract was that Walton will take hold of a new building after Maher demolishes the existing building. The contract also contained the terms of the rent. Maher received a draft of the lease and Walton got the revised lease. Maher performed the demolition in November and informed Walton about the occurrence. Walton asked Maher to perform the demolition slowly as it had certain reservations about the decision. After about 40% of the new building had been prepared in January, Walton decided to back out. The court proceedings stated that the discussion was enough for Maher to continue the contract terms because a promise had been made and was encouraged by the promisor. The court also said that the conduct and actions made by the promisor is sufficient and enough for ensuring a continuation of the promise and carrying out the actions discussed in the negotiations. Hence, it can be said that the Promissory Estoppel is regarded as a valid reason for undertaking certain actions based on the reliability of the promise and stop the promisor party from backing out from the claim or the promise in case of any k9ind of damage or occurrence of unanticipated events.
Khoury, D. and Yamouni, Y. (2009). Understanding contract law. Chatswood, N.S.W.: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Monahan, G. and Carr-Gregg, S. (2007). Essential contract law. New York, NY: Routledge-Cavendish.
Paterson, J. (2011). Unfair contract terms law in Australia. Pyrmont, N.S.W.: Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia.
Willmott, L., Christensen, S. and Butler, D. (2005). Contract law. South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Oxford University Press.