Foundations of Business Law - Essay Example

Name: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Institution: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Professor: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Course: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Date of Submission: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Foundations of Business Law Question 1 According to the statement that Coglin Clothing made to Ken and Pauline that “if Ken and Pauline still wished to buy the uniforms for $ 10000 cash, Coglin Clothing would be happy to go ahead with this”, they are obliged to sell the uniforms to Ken and Pauline at $ 10000. This is well in accordance to the principle of offer and acceptance. According to this principle, Coglin Clothing had made an offer to Ken and Pauline which is an indication of willingness to enter into a contract between the two companies. It was just upon Ken and Pauline to agree to the terms and conditions at any time and the two would enter a contract. At the time Ken and Pauline come back having agreed to the terms and condition of buying the uniforms at $ 10000, they are ready to enter into a contract. In addition, the offer and acceptance principle puts forward that a contract is an agreement. The agreement in this case had been left to Ken and Pauline. Upon their acceptance, the contract has to be signed and therefore Coglin Clothing is obliged to selling the uniforms to Ken and Pauline at that amount. The time given to Ken and Pauline was indefinite and this meant that at any moment they agree with the terms and conditions, then Coglin Clothing is obliged to carry out the contract, that is, Coglin Clothing give Ken and Pauline the uniforms at $ 10000. In the offer and acceptance principle, when terms and conditions are accomplished within the transaction, then the two parties are obliged to contract: Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 Question 2 In case Coglin Clothing Company had not said, “If Ken and Pauline still wished to buy the uniforms for $ 10000 cash, Coglin Clothing would be happy to go ahead with this”, there would be no obligation. Through this statement, the Coglin Clothing Company had tied itself to the contract as long as Ken and Pauline agreed to the terms and conditions. The answer could therefore have been different to indicate that there was no obligation between the two companies for Coglin to sell the uniforms to Ken and Pauline at $ 10000. Offer and acceptance principle of business law always focuses on the initial intentions of the two parties. These intentions are what define whether a contract has been formed or not. When Coglin Clothing made the statement, it indicated that only after Ken and Pauline agree to the terms is when the contract would be entered. Coglin Clothing’s final intention is what ties it to sell the uniforms to Ken and Pauline. At this level, the Coglin Clothing is bound by the principle of objectivity to sell the uniform as agreed earlier on by the two parties. The answer could have especially been different if Coglin Clothing had given Ken and Pauline a specific period of time to think over the terms and conditions. However, the period was too open and this therefore binds Coglin Clothing to continue with the contract. Question 3 At a common law, a contract is said to be unenforceable when it is valid but in which case the court of law cannot enforce in the event one of the parties incurs a loss. Validity of such a contract stands when the two parties perform the contract to the end. However, failure of one party cannot compel the court to enforce it. In so saying, Coglin Clothing Company means that the losses incurred by Tommy-D are unusual and therefore considered socially marginal in terms of utility. In this case, it is implied that the losses incurred are not evidential and it may be hard for the court to get involved for enforcement. It is not obligatory for Coglin Clothing to pay for the losses incurred by Tommy-D. In any case, for the contract between Coglin Clothing and Tommy-D, there was not complete contract. When Coglin Clothing’s solicitor, Lewis & Partners sent a contract to Tommy-D for signing, it was signed and returned immediately. However, Coglin Clothing did not sign the contract and after UNISA Law School changing its mind on not needing the uniforms any more, blame is taken to Coglin Clothing. Tommy-D estimated a loss of $ 3000 which according to the unenforceable contract law, it cannot be intervened by a court of law. Contracts are hence considered unenforceable if there are cases of missing completion of the contract in the agreement: Baldry vs. Marshall (1925) 1KB 260. This means that for any contract to be enforceable in case of liabilities there needs to be evidence of conditions laid down by the two parties on the action to be taken upon failure to fulfill the contract. In addition, there was no specific period designed for the signing of the contract by Coglin Clothing from Tommy-D. Question 4 For the purpose of enforcing this agreement between Coglin Clothing Company and Tommy-D, there must be substantial evidence for the need to enforce it. Tommy-D can argue from the perspective of Coglin Clothing advertising the tender for designing the uniform. After Tommy-D was chosen upon, it is evident that he was taken fast in signing the contract so that he accomplishes the work within a short period of time. The fast move by Coglin Clothing to compel Tommy-D in signing the contract implied that Coglin Clothing Company had found the deal reasonable and was ready to adhere to the contract terms. In addition to this, designing of the uniform was given a very short notice of only one week and therefore there was no room to weigh for possible frisks in entering such a contract. It was upon this short notice that Tommy-D set of to design the uniform so that he could not let down the other party within the contract. Ultimately, cancelation of the tender on 12th may and yet the due date for delivering the design was three days away appears too short. At this time Tommy-D must have finished most of the work and maybe carrying out final touches on the design. Upon such equitable arguments, the court could press on to enforce the contract. On the contrary, design of the uniforms should not at any point be affected by UNISA’s decision to cancel its contract with Coglin Clothing. In that case, Tommy-D’s contract was with Coglin Clothing and not UNISA Law School. Reference: Miller, R. L. & Jentz, G. 2007. Business Law Today: The Essentials. New York: Cengage Learning. Read More