Discuss about the Business Law for The Administrative Assistants.
Tenders were called for by the University of Millennia for the supply of green seed for the surroundings. The last date of submitting the tenders was 1st June. Three tenders were submitted by three parties Greenland, Enviro and Plant Forever. The tender of Greenland was delivered in hand and was put into the tender box on 29 May. The tender of Enviro has been posted on May 15 but the University received it on May 17. One of the administrative assistants filed it with a thought of putting the tender in the box later as it was submitted very early. Plant Forever’s tender was posted on May 30. The letter has been put into the tender box although it has been received on June 2. The tender of Enviro was containing attracting characteristics but it was not considered as the assistant forgot the place where she had filed it and got after one week of making decision. Because of the general talk that is made of the uncertain activity of Greenland, Plant Forever got the contract. The letter that was sent to Plant Forever by the University to inform them about the contract, did not reach to them. A postal worker who has been made redundant has destroyed it. Plant Forever has entered into some other contract as no information has been provided to them. Later on the University came to know about the situation of Enviro and Plant Forever.
This case is covered by the contract law. A contract is an agreement that is enforceable by law. To make a contract there must be certain condition that needs to be fulfilled, (Lawhandbook, 2016). The most important condition that needs to be fulfilled is offer and acceptance. An offer and acceptance alone has got no power, they alone cannot lead to form a contract. But offer and acceptance together can make a contract that has got legal capacity and form a legal relation.
In this case the University has made an invitation to offer by giving call for tender for supply of green seed. The three parties Greenland, Enviro and Plant Forever have made an offer to the University by posting their tenders by the mentioned time. It depends on the University to accept the offer of any one of them.
In case of Greenland, the tender or offer provided by them was second lowest but as the University did not accept its offer due to the rumors, no contract has been made between them.
The tender of Enviro, i.e., the offer was the lowest and attractive but since it was not found by the administrative assistant at the time of making the decision, its offer was not accepted by the University. Therefore, no contract exists between them.
The University at last accepted the offer made by Plant Forever and posted a letter of acceptance to them that was duly addressed. It did not get the letter due to the postal agent although it was a legal acceptance. In the meantime, Plane Forever has entered into another contract which states that no contract has taken place.
Therefore it can be concluded that no contractual relationship has been taken place between the University and any of the parties who made the offer. Greenland’s offer was not accepted by the University, Enviro’s offer was not found by the Administration. The acceptance was made to the offer of Plant Forever through. But since the acceptance was not in the knowledge of Plant Forever and it entered into another contract, no contractual relation exist between them.
Footloose Pty Ltd has made an advertisement in the newspaper that latest summer collection of shoes, wedge heels and the new slingback sandals from Italy is ready to get delivered. The price of the shoes starts from per hundred pairs $2000 and other discounts for bulk order will be negotiated. Ms Simone is to be contacted for any queries. Famous Footwear on 2 October faxed Ms Simon where it has ordered at $2000 per hundred pairs 500 pairs. James is the owner of the James’ Shoes, shoe retailer and also had several regional stores in Australia. He on October 4 by sending fax to Simone has made an offer by willing to buy slingback sandals’ 2000 pairs. The price offered by them was $30,000 including the delivery and GST. Ms Simone on October 6 send a fax to James that Footloose is ready to sell the slingback sandals for the offered price but will not include delivery. James on October 8 sent a mail to Simone of accepting the offer made by Simone and wanted to know the date of delivery. After a discussion on 10 October both the parties agreed to the conditions and Footlose will deliver the sandals to James from Sydney warehouse on November 1.
This case also is covered under the rule of offer and acceptance, which is an essential condition to make an agreement between the parties and will lead to the formation of a contract. This is guided by the Law of Contract. Offer and acceptance go parallel to each other. Offer and acceptance both can be in an expressed or implied form which means it should either in written form or is understood by the action of the party respectively. An offer or acceptance can be revoked anytime, which means that an offer may come to an end and can no longer be open to any acceptance under certain circumstances like expiry of reasonable and specified time, because of insanity or death, counter offer, refusal etc. Likewise, acceptance can also be revoked under certain circumstances like revoking any acceptance made to an offer before it is passed or communicated to the other party but not afterwards. Here, in this case only one case is applicable for revocation, counter offer. Counter offer is an offer that is made by the second party against the original offer made by the first party. The original offer comes to an end once a counter offer is made, (Clarke, 2016).
It is very clear that an invitation to offer has been made by Footloose Pty Ltd by giving an advertisement in the newspaper on October 1. The advertisement made was to avail the latest summer collection of shoes, wedges and slingback sandals at $2000 per hundred pairs and other discounts for bulk order.
On 2 October, Famous footwear has made an offer against the advertisement to Footloose by ordering 500 pairs of shoes at the rate of $2000 per hundred pairs. But no response has been provided to them by Ms Simone who is supposed to have answer to their offer. Therefore, no acceptance has been made on the part of Footloose for the offer made by the Famous footwear. Since no offer and acceptance is made no legal effect is present in this communication.
James on 4 October has made an offer of purchasing 2000 pairs of slingback sandals at $30,000 which will also include the delivery charges and GST. In respect of this offer Ms Simone on 6 October make an offer of selling the said number of sandals at the said price but excluding the delivery charges. This offer was accepted by James and the sandals were to be delivered by Footloose from Sydney warehouse on November 1. Therefore, there has been made a contract as there is an offer and acceptance. But the original offer has been revoked by Footloose.
From the statements made here, it is concluded that there is no existence of any legal acceptance of Footloose to the offer made by Famous footwear. In case of James’s Shoes, the original offer has been revoked by Footloose. James has accepted the second offer that is, counter offer was made to him by Ms Simone and they form a contract. But as per contract law, once the counter offer is made, the original offer comes to an end. Therefore, the contract form is out of counter offer and not the original offer.
Richard Anderson works in Cube Laboratory Pty Ltd and is a talented chemist. The lab has been working successfully by receiving government contracts and other research grants. He was under working under 5 year contract that was about to expire on June 30. Richard was chosen for the position of chief chemist by headhunters at a rival lab. If he accepts this job, he will have to transfer to some other place with his family. His wife will have to look for a new job and his children will have to change their school. Richard on 1 March went to Warren who was the chief chemist of Cube to let him have the knowledge of the conversation between him and the headhunters. He told Warren that the offer is attractive but he does not want his wife and children to face problem in course of relocation. Warren told Richard of his being the team’s important part. Because of him Cube has got many success and they are interested to carry on the same. By these words Richard thought that Cube wants to extend the contract. He called the headhunters and refused their proposal and went on working with the Cube and did not discuss about the matter any further. On June 25 Warren told Richard that there was some liquidity problem and that Cube was cutting of the job of number of staffs and asked them to go. Richard got upset and started finding a job but unfortunately found a job at a university. His salary was less but his wife and children are continuing with the same job and they did not have to relocate.
Here also, the whole situation is covered by the law of contract and the rule of offer and acceptance. An invitation of offer has been made by a party. The one interested will make an offer and if liked the offer will be accepted by the other party who has given the invitation. The other rule applicable in this case is the termination of a contract, (Legalmatch, 2016). Breach of contract has also taken place for which the aggrieved party can claim damages under specific performance.
In this case, Richard has been working with the Cube Laboratory Pty Ltd under a contract of five year that was about to expire on 30 June. In February, he was approached by the headhunters for the position of chief chemist in a rival lab of Cube, which means an offer has been made by the headhunters. Richard found the invitation attractive but he does not want to relocate his children and wife. Therefore, no acceptance was till now and it was kept aside.
Richard told Warren about the offer. Warren told him that he was an important part of the team and the lab has got a great success and they want to take it ahead. By this Richard thought that his contract will be extended by them. But here, no specific words or terms or expression have been used, rather an implied offer has been made. Richard thought it to be great and carried on work with them. He refused the offer of the headhunters. But on June 25, that is five days before the termination of the contract he was forced to move out of the lab due to liquidity issues. This was a breach of both the contract, one which was existing contract of five years and the other is the implied contract made before the expiry of the original contract.
Therefore, it can be concluded that a breach of contract has taken place that has caused a huge damage to Richard since he has refused the offer the made by the headhunters and also that he was forced to move out from Cube before the expiry of the five-year contract. He found a job at university where the salary is very much less than what he used to get. Therefore, he can claim damages from the Cube for the special damage caused to him due to the breach, (JEC, 2016).
Clarke, J., 2016. Australian Contract Law. [Online] Available at: www.australiancontractlaw.com [Accessed 26 November 2016].
JEC, 2016. Remedies for breach of contract. [Online] Available at: jec.unm.edu/./contract-law-tutorial/remedies-for-breach-of-contract [Accessed 26 November 2016].
Lawhandbook, 2016. Elements of Contract. [Online] Available at: www.lawhandbook.org.au › Contents [Accessed 26 November 2016].
Legalmatch, 2016. types of damages. [Online] Available at: www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/types-of-damages-available [Accessed 26 November 2016].