Legal Interpretation and Doctrines - Essay Example

A case Study Affiliation Case study analysis Introduction On December 4th, 1961, Electronic & Missile Facilities Inc. (EMF) was awarded as the prime contractor in extension of United States Post Office Customs houses at a cost of $1,650,000 (Crawford 2012 p.55). Together with Sullivan, they undertook the contract to do plumbing, heating apparatus, air conditioning and ventilation. In what could end up in the legal case, during the fall of 1961, Frank Sullivan approached Michael, who was a primary partner in Midwest contractors (Crawford 2012 p.56). It allowed him to take part in metal sheet and air conditioning portion of the construction. Although the quotation given by him was $200,000 higher than what Frank wanted, they agreed to proceed with agreement pending negotiations (Crawford 2012 p.57). Early January the following year, Frank sent Jack from Boston to St. Paul in order to confer with the EMFs superintendent. Byers was identified as the final superintendent during the job, after meeting Byers; Jack went ahead as instructed to assess labor situation. In addition, the most important deal was to meet Bye and the prospective subcontractor, Elnicky and give him quotation that indicated the reduction of the initial bid and possibly got the job started. Frank had given Jack quotation prepared by Sullivan, although he had not seen the initial contract for the job. This was certainly the greatest error that happened ahead of the unfolding legal debate. On 22nd January, Jack made the first visit to the Midwest office. During the hearing, he noted that it was the first time he was encountering Jack, and he had identified himself as part of Sullivan team. In what remains a legal argument, Jack allegedly had claimed he had "a piece of it" implying he suggested that he was among the owners of Sullivan. Although Jack denied vehemently, Elnicky admits that he did not bother to ask the official position of Jack within the Sullivan neither did he request for a formal written document (Crawford 2012 p.59). Besides, what caused legal controversy is the fact that he testified that Jack had no objection when he suggested that he wanted to take over the entire job from Sullivan. Besides, he agreed to get a copy of the prime contract to the Midwest in preparation for a takeover. On 23rd Tuesday, a historic event happened when Jack availed the prime contract copy from Sullivan and handed it over to him. On 24th January, Jack made a call informing Frank the ongoing discussion with Midwest, a decision that Frank disagreed since EMF wanted Sullivan in the job. Just before Jack left for Boston, he arrived at his hotel where Jack wrote something down that were largely dictated by him. Finally, the revelation of the contract allowed Midwest to take over the entire subcontract at $1,550,000 under scotch whisky by both (Crawford 2012 p.62). The main conflicting perspective of this chronological event. Hence, there was no need of further details. On the other hand, he denied the existence of any further approval; this marked the beginning of the legal battle. Legal interpretation and Doctrines The case presents a common legal battle where an unauthorized personnel undertake the approval of a major decision without any approval. According to the organizational laws, Jack was an outside superintendent whose work was limited to executing direction, but not to enter into any agreement on behalf of the organization. As per the doctrines of the organization and common business laws, Jack was unauthorized person who executed a function that is not within his area of operational jurisdiction. Thus, he had entered into an agreement with persona non grata (Singh 2003 p. 123). Under the law, Sullivan holds an edge over Midwest because the exhibit that would be presented is the signed contract between Jack, who is unauthorized and Midwest. Under any law jurisdiction, viability of an executable contract should be based on signing by the authorized personnel of the organization in the presence of respective legal teams. It is, therefore, definite that the signed that appeared in the document was unauthorized, and the contract would be null and void. According to the contract laws, the effectiveness of the contract should include the presence of prime contractors legally acceptable representative that could ensure authorization of the deal (Levy ey al., 2000 p.312). Besides, the legality of the Sullivans agent to undertake the contract, identity of Midwest Exhibit of the agreement between the parties would be declared unsound and enviable. This is because legality of the parties involved in the contract was questionable, and the law requires for the legally authorized personnel to sign any contract terms. In addition, the contractors stipulates those who can execute a contract based on legal position and authority bestowed upon each official. Besides,he engaged Jack under the influence of alcohol; thus, this is quite unethical and unprofessional. According to the existing business and states laws, Jack was under influence of alcohol could make a prejudicial argument worthwhile (Fontaine & Ly 2009 p.79). Furthermore, if the laws provide for a contract based on mutual consent, but not coercion of the involved parties. In addition, in cases where there is no mutual consent and final assent on the terms and condition of the contract, it is rendered obsolete and irrelevant. In addition, all essential terms should be more precise or capable of being made clear by aid of competent evidence. Basing on this, the agreement made by Jack and Midwest would substantially lack merit if they do not meet the legal threshold of the case merit. In a legal argument, the clarity, he vagueness of the argument that the contract agreement was subject to approval by Sullivan could serve as a recipe of Frank and team eventuality (Thompson 2009 p.178). Besides, there will be substantial legal debates on whose authority Jack obtained the prime contract. Conclusion Midwest has substantial ground to hold Sullivan over the controversial takeover because Jack appears to be acting on certain authority. Besides, the admission that Frank had knowledge of the ongoing agreements for the takeover reveals an important landscape of the cases. While giving a verdict, the jurist will consider the existence of three key grey areas that would easily hand a life to the Midwest. Firstly, the existence of knowledge by Frank on the agreements between Jack and Midwest. It offers a substantial legality of existing of knowledge across the Sullivan, and Jack was a mere agent with delegate authority. Secondly, the fact that Byer had knowledge of ongoing negotiations between Jack and Midwest, and he decided to keep calm is a significant lifeline to Midwest. Lastly, the vagueness of the substantial terms of the alleged authorization from Sullivan makes the whole case appear agreeable to have thee takeover. Although the case had its technical errors, the jury is likely to transfer damages of the contract to Sullivan for irresponsible use of their agents. The agent was arguably on an errand to sell the contract to the disadvantage of the Midwest. Irrespective of initial failure by Midwest to seek legally accepted channels in any transaction, the ability of Jack to offer all the requirements including an original prime contract indicates legality. It would be impractical without any injunction from the legal authorities. It, therefore, highlights the extreme reckless of the Sullivan and hence they are likely to have the case going against their wish. Besides, they are likely to pay for the damages caused by their reckless agents. References List Crawford, T. 2012. The Fine Artists Guide to a Contract with an Independent Contractor. New York: Constable & Robinson. Fontaine, M., & Ly, F. 2009. Drafting international contracts an analysis of contract clauses. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Pub.. Levy, L. W., Karst, K. L., & Winkler, A. 2000. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Singh, N. (2003). Business laws. New Delhi: Deep & Deep. Thompson, F. 2009. Business legislations. Mumbai [India: Himalaya Pub. House. Read More