Delivery in day(s): 4
TLAW101 Business Law Editing and Proof Reading Services
Awareness of business laws and regulations is extremely important for an organization to operate in the market. It is essential to take into account the different aspects involved in business especially the legal terms and conditions. In business, there could be a number of implications which needs to be eliminated in order to make sure the business runs smoothly. In the business contract is one of the key aspects that creates significant confusions and hinders the growth and development of the business. It could be said that conforming to the contractual laws is essential for the entrepreneurs so that there are no confusions and each and every clause is effectively written to be referred by the court in case of legal implications (Milsom, 2014). The present study will discuss very similar issues of business like tender contracts, and contractual terms and conditions which would help to achieve the objectives set by the assignment.
Tendering is the common process for businesses supplying goods and services in bulk orders. It is the process through which a particular organization comes to terms with companies who are ready to provide it the required service at best lowest price. This is the process competition where a company is able to show its capability of working for a company at the lowest price possible. Almost all the common government jobs are done through the process of tendering. From the parlance of law tendering is called the invitation to treat where different companies could come and show their capacity to get the contract by agreeing to the terms and conditions that apparently means accepting an offer in contract law. At the basic level, it is the way of quoting a price for a particular job and then focusing on developing the communication whereas for bigger jobs it is much more of a formal quotation for the job (Hofmann, 2010). In the present case, the University of Millennia has invited bids for its supply of green seeds for the surrounding which experienced bids from different organizations. The organisations in question are Greenland Hand who delivered their tender 29th may which went in the tender box and then Enviro posted its Tender on the 15th of may which was delivered by 17th may but as the fate would have it since it was posted so early it was kept in a file but the person filing it forgot to put it in the tender box which was revealed after the crossing of the deadline which is 1st of June. On the other hand, another company named Plant Forever posted its tender on 30th of May which reached the university by 2nd of June but even though it crossed the deadline it was put into the tender box (Chen-Wishart, 2012).
As insights received from the case scenario it could be said that Plant Forever shouldn’t have been considered to appear in the tender as it is against the common business law since it wasn’t able to file for the tender within the stipulated time which was given till 1st of June. It could be said that there was clearly some mismanagement regarding this as Plant Forever received their chance for the job due to their lower pricing. Eventually the company was not able to do their job with the university since they didn’t receive any further information of the University for the inefficiency of a redundant employee of the post office but it could be said that as per the tender rules and regulations the consideration of the company should have been made based on their professionalism about filing the tender within the given time which they failed. On the other hand, Greenland Hand was the only one who was effective to submit the bid properly and their bid was accepted. In this case, it was important for the University to consider their position to analyze the skills and capabilities of Green hand Land before striking them off from the list of prospects (Stewart, 2012).
As an organization, the university believed in rumors which weren't professional at all and was against the ethics but as per the tender regulations, Green land Hand should have got the contract. Presently as the University has become aware of all that happened with Enviro and Plant Forever which clearly shows their position in the entire tender process. At the present moment, the University is under problem with its project as Plant Forever had not received the acceptance letter and has got engaged with another company which invalidates the option of getting the company back in the tender legally as they didn’t receive any kind of official acceptance (Hepburn, 2013). On the other hand, Enviro which should have originally received the tender was not present during the bid even though it had put forward the best price and best features. In the legal parlance, it could be said that Enviro is the best company to get the project. As per the common law and the tender rules in Australia, companies get upper hand that quotes the lowest price with best features and that also filing the tender right within the stipulated time. Hence right now the University of Millennia is standing in a crunch position legally but as per the common law, the university has the opportunity to start of a business venture with Enviro which will be ethically correct and legally as well (Cartwright, 2016).
In the parlance of law presently the University’s contractual term with all the three companies are in the precarious situation. In this case, it is also important to note that posting letters in the letterbox is also an important aspect of the contract. It is important to highlight that a contract is only deemed complete when the offer and acceptance are verbally communicated to the offeror and the offeree. Hence, in this case, it could be said that the University still has the contract valid with Plant Forever as the contract was communicated when the letter was posted in the letterbox which is shown effectively in the case of Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant (1879). Hence it could be said that if the University wants it can take the contract ahead. But the other aspects will also have to be considered like the prices and features which makes Enviro seal the contract as it was the first company to communicate its interest to the university through the post (Furmston et al., 2012).
The present case provides very clear information about the business conversation and the different elements of contracts being highlighted effectively. Elements of contracts are extremely important for companies to get into contractual terms and hence it is important to analyze the present situation which would help to get positive insights from the case.
The advertisement that was presented by the Footloose Pty Ltd Placed was much of an invitation to treat which didn’t indicate any kind of promises but clearly mentioned discounts are available on special shoes which are clearly an invitation for the other retailers or other shoe companies to come and avail the offer. The advertisement which was placed was clearly announced for mass consumption especially through the retail and wholesale consumers (Pettit, 2012). It could be said that the advertisement put up by the company was a mere invitation to treat and not an offer made to the companies because there had this been a direct offer it would have said about the specific pricing of the offer but the pricing was published in approximation and it was also stated that the pricing was negotiable based on amount of units consumed (Anson et al., 2012). The aspect of invitation to treat has been clearly defined in the English law system and one of the cult cases is the Carlill vs Smoke Ball case it could be said that in this case the company clearly tried to avoid the claim by stating that the promise of cash reward made was not an offer and was a mere invitation to treat but the court ruled in favor of the claimant stating that the company made movements to fulfill their consideration by depositing 1000 pounds in the bank. In this case, it was the promise of discounts but of no cash reward which clearly eliminates that issue of forming unilateral contract. In this case, the promise is of discount and hence if no vendor comes to buy the product there is no point offering the discount. Hence in the present case, the advertisement made by the company Footloose is clearly an invitation to treat as per the information on the contract law. On the 2nd October, famous footwear sent a fax which stated that they agree to the offer of Footloose but it was not an offer and this was not clarified by the sales manager of the company. On the other hand, James has been much more formal and understands the procedure to respond to notices (Latimer, 2012). He understood that it was not an offer but an invitation to treat which has to be responded to in order to take the communication further and did the needful to interact. ON the 4th of October James mailed the sales manager making an offer which is the right procedure to respond to an invitation of treatment. The offer was effectively made stating to buy 2000 pair of slingback sandals at a quoted price of $30, 000 including delivery and GST. The company Footloose Pty Ltd accepted with a slight change in the terms and stated that it will sell the 2000 pairs at the agreed price excluding delivery which seemed to be the ultimate condition of the contract and the company James’s Shoes accepted all the terms and conditions to continue with the contract (Humphèry-Jenner 2009). As the maximum of the communication has been done over fax it could be said that fax could be deemed as a valid form to making a contract even if the data gets lost in the transmission it could be deemed valid if the offer and acceptance is communicated which has been done in this case by the sales manager and James over phone. Even though contracts entered into by a fax is considered valid but it is not considered as a legal document which a telex is considered which is clearly showed in the case of Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl GmbH 1982 2AC 34 which doesn’t speak out a clear acceptance might not be considered into a contract (Paterson, 2009).
Richard has a significant scope of getting compensation for the damages done to him in this case. Richard was getting better pay but relied largely on the present job at Cube Laboratories where he was an efficient worker and this is very clear from the words of the Chief Chemist Warren who showed promise to retain Richard for the organization due to his performance (DiMatteo, 2010). Richard was reluctant to leave the job at Cube as he relied on the job and didn’t want to shift to the new job as he then would have to move to a new location and his children will have to go to a new school and his wife has to find another job which would be tough and this clearly shows the amount of reliability Richard has for the job and so he gave the offer a pass and quite, unfortunately, the present job also fired him which is clearly unjustified as he was working well and there were no performance issues but the company showed a lame excuse to fire him. In this case, Richard could apply promissory Estoppel a tool which could be applied by the court if it finds the job that one party has been deprived of is necessary for him and he or she relied on it which is clearly the case here. Similar to one of the cult cases of Jorden v. Moneywhere no promise was written but it has been effectively found justice based on estoppel. Hence it could be said that Richard will be able to claim his compensation based on the concept of promissory estoppel (Stewart, 2010).
The present study has discussed the key aspect of principals and equity of contract law in the country which has helped to gain new insights from the study and has helped to complete the study successfully.
Anson, W.R., Beatson, J., Burrows, A.S., and Cartwright, J., 2010. Anson's law of contract. Oxford University Press.
Cartwright, J., 2016. Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the civil lawyer. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Chen-Wishart, M. 2012. Contract law. Oxford University Press.
DiMatteo, L.A., 2010. Strategic contracting: contract law as a source of competitive advantage. American Business Law Journal, 47(4), pp.727-794.
Furmston, M.P., Cheshire, G.C. and Fifoot, C.H.S., 2012. Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston's law of contract. Oxford University Press.
Hepburn, S., 2013. Principles of Equity & Trusts (Aus) 2/e. Routledge.
Hofmann, N., 2010. Interpretation Rules and Good Faith as Obstacles to the UK's Ratification of the CISG and to the Harmonization of Contract Law in Europe. Pace Int'l L. Rev., 22, p.145.
Humphèry-Jenner, M.L., 2009. Should common Law doctrines dynamically guide the interpretation of statutes?. Legisprudence, 3(2), pp.171-189.
Latimer, P., 2012. Australian Business Law 2012. CCH Australia Limited.
Milsom, S.F.C., 2014. Historical foundations of the common law. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Paterson, J.M., 2009. The Australian Unfair Contract Terms Law: The Rise of Substantive Unfairness as a Ground for Review of Standard Form Consumer Contracts. Melbourne University Law Review, 33(3).
Pettit, P.H., 2012. Equity and the Law of Trusts. Oxford University Press.
Stewart, A. 2010. Good faith: A necessary element in Australian Employment Law. Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J., 32, 521.