Business Law and Ethics - Essay Example

Business law and ethics Business law and ethics In APA format P.Swarnalatha ID # 5448 Order # 178626 d 6th August 2007 Word count: 2590 ABSTRACT Bert has not violated any business ethics and in this way he has not beached the rules of contract law and hence he should not be punished under court of law. For getting protected under this case he should represent his ground with solid proof that he didn’t involve in any violation of implied contract or quasi contract. Moreover, he should prove that he has not got any information from Williams before he finalized the contract with another party. As he has no intention to cause disadvantage to Williams or Tom, he has strong chances of defending his case provided he addresses the legal issues logically. BUSINESS LAW AND ETHICS INTRODUCTION Business law is a very important aspect as far as the interests of the customers are concerned. It has contract law regulations for protecting the ethical issues of the parties involved in any business transaction (John D. Ashcroft and Janet Ashcroft, 2007 and Richard. A. Mann and Barry S. Roberts, 2005). If the contract law is violated by any one of the parties, they would be liable to be punished under court of law (E.Allan Fransworth, 2004, Richard Craswell and Alan Schwartz, 1994 and Steven J. Burton and Melvin Aron Eisenberg, 2005). PRESENT CASE In the present case, Bert has given a word to Williams that he will not sell the car below $ 10,500 which he strictly followed. However, the problem lies in deadline given for the selling i.e. Saturday which he could not follow. Williams was told the car would not be sold before Saturday but the car was sold on Thursday. Williams has even communicated to Bert regarding his acceptance which however could not be red by Bert due to inadvertent incident. Hence it will not be proper to state that Bert would be made guilty for the incident. Moreover, legal matters would not put Bert in to trouble if the matter is dealt in the following manner. First of all, Bert has not committed any thing written to neither Williams nor Tom. Hence as far as the legal stand is concerned he has to be considered under safe zone. It doesn’t mean that oral conversation would not be taken seriously, it only indicates that relatively he has not assured any thing with higher intensity. In case of Ball V Bridges (1874), the judgment has gone in favor of seller as no offer and acceptance were made in writing and hence it would not come under breach of contract or business law. Hence the case of Bert under present study comes under this and he should not be made guilty as far as sale of his car is concerned. Bert should always maintain that he has not violated any terms of agreement what ever have been made orally and which have moral stand only. In addition, there is also no indication and proof that Williams has been very much serious on his talk except the mail communication made on Thursday. Hence he is advised to deal this matter carefully and appoint an advocate to defend his case which is otherwise very genuine from his side. Had Williams really breached the business contract law as in cases of Denton V Stewart (1786) ; Aberaman Ironworks v Wickens (1868) ; Greenaway V Adams (1806), he would be in a delicate situation. But he has not committed any mistake as far as the legal issues of contract law are concerned. His chances of winning the legal battle are very high in case Williams represents the issue legally. Most importantly there is no ground in which it can be proven that Williams has committed to sell off his car to Harry intentionally. It cannot be interpreted logically that Bert gained huge profit out of his transaction as he sold at a price ($10,750) very nearer to his minimum quoted price i.e. $ 10,500. Only point Williams legal representative may stress here is that Bert committed not to sell his car before Saturday, which he didn’t follow leading to loss to Williams. Had Bert maintained his word, Williams would have been in a position to purchase car at the same price at which it was transacted to Harry. However, here one has to interpret in favor of Bert only as he has not committed any thing concrete to Williams regarding sale of his car. Moreover, he orally conveyed that he would be in a position to sell his car and any conversation would be made only after Saturday. It does not mean that he committed solidly to sell his car to Williams. His point of giving the deadline as Saturday is to indicate that he would take decision on that specific day after examining the available options. Even had he not sold on Thursday and decided to sell it on Saturday he would have exercised his right of freedom of transaction and no legal law would make him guilty. Hence he has to build his argument in this manner. In addition, this business transaction doesn’t come under misrepresentation as in cases of Ahmed V Addy (2004), Benham Ltd v Kythira Investments Ltd (2003) and Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd (1957) as no ground can be proved in which Bert has caused intentional damage to both Williams and Tom. Secondly, Williams as an individual has several natural rights in which he can operate the law of transactions or business. As long as it doesn’t affect the right to freedom of expression and other basic rights, he would not be made guilty for violating the business law. The question of ethical principles would arise only if Bert has committed to transact at a fixed price and was written in the same language while communicating it to Williams. Hence in this case the ethics have not been violated under the business law. Tom may also represent legally for his right to get the car under business law had he been given a chance which cannot be ruled out. However, his legal stand would not be as strong as that of Williams as Bert didn’t communicate and assured any thing regarding the rate and time of transaction to him. What ever the legal grounds justifying the correct stand of Bert discussed under above paragraphs would also be applicable to Tom’s case also. Tom was not even told to be sold at a fixed price and at a specific time. He was only communicated by Bert that he was with a view to transact the car at a price higher than $ 10,500 which has nothing to do with any claim taken by Tom. In this context, one has to examine the relevance of contract law. According to the standard definition of contract law, it is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties on any matter of transaction for some specific period of time. In other words, a contract is defined as a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between parties that the law will enforce. The contract may be a written one or orally communicated one. In general several contracts are made orally. However, written contracts have more validity. In the present case, the written contract has not been done, but it comes under purely an oral communication. Even in this also no where assurance has been given by Bert to Williams and Tom. Only authenticated communication has been made related to his idea of selling the car at some specific price and at a specific period which has nothing to do with violation of contract law. Another important aspect of valid contract is that both the parties of the contract must accept the terms of agreement in the beginning. In other words, it must be a bilateral agreement. Hence according to this concept, the most important feature of a contract is that one party makes an offer for a bargain that another accepts. This can be referred a concurrence of wills or a meeting of the minds of two or more parties. One more important aspect is that there should be a proof that the parties had each from an objective perspective engaged in conduct manifesting their assent, and a contract will be formed when the parties have met such a requirement. An objective perspective means that it is only necessary that somebody gives the impression of offering or accepting contractual terms in the eyes of a reasonable person, not that they actually did want to contract. In the present case, it doesn’t seem to be logical that Bert has made an agreement in which he assured the other party that he would sell the car to Williams and Tom only at certain price and at a specific time and hence it should not be treated as a bilaterl agreement or contract. It comes under unilateral contract which cannot be considered as legally binding on the side of Bert to sell the car to Williams ot Tom. Earlier, in several occasions where unilateral contracts were made as in case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., obligations are only imposed upon one party upon acceptance by performance of a condition. The offer and acceptance should be expressed by both the parties otherwise the offer would not be treated as legally valid (Adams V Wheatley, 1854) Inspite of all the supporting points discussed in the above paragraphs, there is a chance of strong representation from Williams which may become troublesome for Bert if he doesn’t represent legal matters seriously. This threat may be in the form of an implied contract. According to this, an offer and acceptance does not always need to be expressed orally or in writing. It may be discussed between the two parties privately but not recorded either orally or in writing. It doesn’t mean that its legal status is zero. An implied contract is defined as a contract in which some of the terms are not expressed in words. Even it can be classified in to two forms. A contract which is implied in fact is one in which the circumstances imply that parties have reached an agreement even though they have not done so expressly. For example, if a person A enters in to an agreement with person B and person B agrees to pay consultancy fee for the services to be provided by person A and if he refuses to pay after getting consultancy sevice, he has breached a contract implied in fact. Williams may argue that the present contract comes under implied contract and hence his case may have to be protected. A contract which is implied in law is also called a quasi-contract, because it is not in fact a contract; rather, it is a means for the courts to remedy situations in which one party would be unjustly enriched were he or she not required to compensate the other. The parites may have the early knowledge of some act which they fell would certainly benefit them directly o indirectly but they maintain that they have no knowledge of it as they have to pay for the servies provided. The contract law would certainly provide protection to the service providers after confirming the evidence that the other party was having the earlier information. For example, if a service rovider installs a stabilizer accidentally in the wrong house. The owner of the house had learned the previous day that his neighbor was getting new stabilizer. That morning, he sees the service provider installing the stabilizer in his own house. Pleased at the mistake, he says nothing, and then refuses to pay when the service provider hands him the bill. Will the man be held liable for payment? Yes, if it could be proven that the service provider knew that the stabilizer was being installed mistakenly, the court would make him pay because of a quasi-contract. At the same innocent people should not be victimized and hence the law says that if that knowledge could not be proven, he would not be considered guilty. In the present context, Bert would not come under a situation in which he has the knowledge of Williams offer and hence he should not be made guilty for the same. When Williams communicated through mail, Bert could not get the same due to some mistake done by his child and he genuinely lacks the information for which he should not be made guilt. Even he communicated his inability to accpt the offer of Williams on Thursday. Ber received the information regarding offer amount of Williams only on Saturday and hence he caanot be made victimized under this case. As the communication was missing through direct contact and it was made through post and that too reached later than the selling time, this should not be considered under guilty act (Adams V Lindsell, 1818 ; Dunlop V Higgins, 1848; Evans V Nicholson, 1875 ; Routledge V Grant, 1828). The lack of clarity in deciding the validity of contract while communication is made through posts was also noticed in case of Caddick V Terry (1864). Moreover, Williams could have mailed the offer proposal again so that Bert would have got the information in time. He could have atleast verified that Bert has received his mail so that he would have been in position to believe that Bert has intentionally violated the terms of contract law. As Williams didn’t do any one of the possible options, he cannot make legal ground against Bert. CONCLUSION Overall, Bert should not get punished under court of law under present case as he didn’t violate any contract law. However, some legal issues relating to the business contract law are very much involved here, Bert is advised to deal this case intelligently by making his legal ground logically. His interpretation should mainly concentrate on the fact that he has no prior information of Williams offer and he has no intention of avoiding Williams. He should also provide grounds for not entering in to written agreement with Williams and he must prove that he has not violated implied contract and quasi contract in any way. As the chances of proving all these grounds are very much available with Bert he would certainly be protected in case legal battle arises. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aberaman Ironworks v Wickens (1868). LR 5 Eq 485. Adams V Wheatley (1854). 3 WR 96. Adams V Lindsell (1818). 1 B & Ald 681, 106 ER 250. Ahmed V Addy (2004). EWHC 1465 (QB). Ball V Bridges (1874). 22 WR 552, 30 LT 430. Benham Ltd v Kythira Investments Ltd (2003). EWCA Civ 1794. Caddick V Terry (1864). 5 New Rep 137. Denton V Stewart (1786). Cox Eq Cas 258, 17 Ves 276n. Dunlop V Higgins (1848). 1 HL Cas 38.1 E. Allan Fransworth (2004). Contracts. Aspen Publishers. P: 940. ISBN-10: 0735545405. Evans V Nicholson (1875). 32 LT 778 Greenaway V Adams (1806). 12 Ves 395. Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd (1957). 1 QB 247. John D. Ashcroft and Janet Ashcroft (2007). Law for business. South Western College publisher. 16th edition. ISBN-10: 0324381573. Richard. A. Mann and Barry S. Roberts (2005). Smith and Robertson’s business law. P:171. South Western College publisher. ISBN-10: 0324204868. Richard Craswell and Alan Schwartz (1994). Foundations of contract law. Foundation Pr publisher. ISBN-10: 156662990X. Routledge V Grant (1828). 4 Bing 653. Steven J. Burton and Melvin Aron Eisenberg (2005). Contract law: Selected source materials 2005. West Publisher. P:609. ISBN-10: 0314160000. Read More