Actions That Led to the Lawsuit - Assignment Example

? Local Lawsuit Local Lawsuit Actions That Led To the Lawsuit A business company involved in provision of leisure and recreation facilities wanted to acquire horses. This was one of the expansive plans hatched by the management to increase the company’s provisions aimed at attracting more customers. The horses were to be used in providing extra recreation facilities in the site to the customers who may wish to use them within the facility. This was necessitated by the observed demand of the same. The horse dealer in response quoted that one horse will retail at $ 550 in the offer (Berenson, 2005). This information was relayed to the company’s manager via a short message using a phone. The dealer though did not categorically state the mode in which he expected a response from the company. On receiving the feedback from the dealer, the company manager decided to respond to the offer by a means of e-mail. In his email, he indicated that the stated $550 amount was too high and that since the company needed 10 horses, he would consider paying $500 for each of the horses. This mail was also accompanied by instruction informing the dealer that if the company does not hear from them by Friday, then the company will consider the deal done and will process paying for the 10 horses (Berenson, 2005). When Friday reached, the company processed the payments, but later found out that the dealer had sold the horses to another third party. The company was disappointed on the grounds that the dealer had breached the contract and in that regard filed a suit in a court to reverse the transaction made between the dealer and the other party. The dealer on the other hand insisted that he did not reach any contract since he had not received any communication from the company and considered that the company withdrew from the deal. What the Management Would Have Done To Curb the Lawsuit Scenario from A Rising The management in this situation ought to have been aware of the way a contract should be communicated; this is in the sense that if a communication from an offeror is made in a particular pattern, it is prudent then that any response to the communication is made in the same way unless otherwise stated by the offeror. This is because ordinarily in contracts, when a communication is done using a different way other than that used by the offeror, then the offeror may not be liable for any miscommunication that may arise due to engagement of a different method. The management decided to use an alternative method to communicate back without the knowledge of the offeror. They ought to have observed this before communicating using the email. Again, in contracts, silence in not considered as a way of acceptance. It can only serve as a way of acceptance if there has been such earlier communication between the two and it is in their knowledge. This is accentuated by the fact that communication is done via the same means used by the offeror. Given that there was no such history between the two, it was wrong for the company’s management to construe that their communication was heeded to by the offeror. The management ought to have taken the precautionary measures of making communication via the same means. Making replies to communication should be informed by the method that has been used by the other partner, this is to the extent that if the same communication is done using another method, chances are that the intended recipient may not access on specific time bound because of some reasons. This may make the partner misconstrue that the information is accepted as in the case of the company discussed in this paper. Legally, the offeror is required to unequivocally state the mode of communication to avoid any communication that will deviate from the initial means of communication. This is the issue witnessed in this case where the offeror makes an offer and does not dictate the mode of relaying acceptance enabling the offeree to choose mail - this is what led to misconstrued communication and subsequently legal suit. Ethical Consideration Depicted in the Case Ethical considerations are very important in ensuring that the relationship between the two parties remains cordial during and after the business contract (Telfer, 2010). In this case, the ethical consideration depicted is making communication regarding agreement through a different method used by the offeror. This is not accepted in business law since it can go unnoticed making the other party believe that the considerations are accepted. This is accentuated in the case that in the response it was subjectively indicated that failure (silence) to communicate back by certain date would mean agreement. This is what has led to the lawsuit in the case of the horse dealer and the business firm. Sources of Law Depicted In the Case Discussed The most depicted law in the discussed scenario is the law of contract. A contract is a legal agreement between two parties in which the parties undertake to the agreements stated in the contract that any departure from the contractual agreement by the either parties will results into a legal suit (Varadarajan, 2001). The parties are then obliged by the contract to live to the writings. A contact is also said to have been reached when the offeree through writing accepts an offer or uses any other forms of communication stated to consent on the offer. Contract or commercial law stipulates the various forms of agreement that are law enforceable and those that are invalid. Those that are considered null and void by the law cannot be enforced in law. A number of factors are involved in the commercial law in terms of how legally enforceable they are. In commercial law, making of a legally binding agreement is given the centre stage in the sense that it enlightens business operators in making informed decisions regarding legally enforceable agreement. In contract law, methods of making acceptance are stipulated silence as a method of acceptance or not clearly stipulated (Varadarajan, 2001). The management of the company ought to have clearly known that deviating from the norm in communication agreement might lead to delay in communication delivery leading to unnecessary legal suits. To avert future similar episodes, the company should abide by the basic ethics in making communication and avoid using the forms of communication other than used by the offeror in the initial instance. The use of the means other than used by the offeror may be considered treacherous with intent to deliberately accuse the other partner for failing to undertake to the agreement. Alternative Solution outside the Court In this situation, the company can decide to have an alternative resolution outside the court given the chronology of the events. Because the company used a different means of communication, its legal position of accusing the offeror for disregarding may not hold that much given that they ought to have used the same method to allow for a tracked communication. The offeror, on the other hand, did also not state the method in which the offeree should communicate to him the acceptance notice. In this case, the situation remains precarious for both the parties. In this reference then, they can decide to settle the matter outside the court by making a new consideration. The offeror could still make a sound consideration with the offeree about the whole contract by agreeing to provide them with the horses on the argeed terms forwarded by the offeree. This agreement should be motivated by the fact that there was communication mishap between the two parties. References Berenson, D. (2005). By law: contract essentials. Your Business: Ways+Means. Remodeling, 5, 32. Telfer, T. G. (2010). Justice Rand's Commercial Law Legacy: Contracts and Bankruptcy Policies. University of New Brunswick Law Journal , 7, 41. Varadarajan, D. (2001). Tortious Interference and the Law of Contract: The Case for Specific Performance Revisited. The Yale Law Journal, 3, 67. Read More