Invoice sent by the company included the note which stated that the terms of the contract shall be adhered according to the original quotation. As per the original quotations Gordon has clearly specified that the servers with latest processors and maximum storage capacities are to be delivered within one month of the order and also sent the payment under the contract with the specific instruction that 'contracting under my specification'.
Therefore the company is under an obligation to deliver within one month and since the delivery is not made within a month there is a clear violation of the contract. In addition there is the violation of the contract specifications as to the quality of the servers also. Since the company has sent servers which did not meet the requirements of Gordon with respect to energy sufficiency and without latest processors the company has made a second violation of the contract. The company Dodgy has fulfilled only the maximum storage capabilities requirements of the servers.
The failure on the part of the company to supply the servers with the required specifications gives rise to different remedies under the contract law to Gordon. ...
In this instance
Gordon is entitled to the right of withdrawing from the contract since he has expressly made his desire to procure servers with energy efficiency and latest processors. Therefore these terms of specifications to the servers become the terms of prime importance to the contract and the failure to meet these terms entail the cancellation of contract by Gordon.
In an alternative situation if Gordon has not made specific request for the supply of servers with energy efficiency and latest processors, he cannot repudiate the contract as there will be a case of breach of warranty only. The issue that Gordon has specified the requirements and Dodgy has not fulfilled them has resulted in a breach of the condition and therefore has altered the nature of the contract. In addition the contract would be treated as void as it is made by misrepresentation. Dodgy has made misrepresentation about its products to Gordon and Gordon has ordered the supply in utmost good faith. Since by the supply of servers not meeting the specifications Gordon has been misled by the company and Gordon therefore is entitled to treat the contract void.
An additional point to consider here is that the misrepresentation by the company as regards the quality of the product is not an innocent misrepresentation but one made with the specific intention of making Gordon believe that. It is unlawful on the part of Dodgy to enter into a contract with Gordon for the goods which the company may not be able to supply at all.
Even though there are mistakes committed by both the parties with regard to the terms of the contract, the contract needs to be terminated as there is no identity of minds ('consensus ad