Pintex Organics London Ltd - Assignment Example

The first problem emerged when the company entered into a contract with Mixurs Ltd to supply it with equipment, but the equipment was found not to be compatible with the installations in the company’s premises, hence, cancellation of the contract. The second major problem concerning the contracts occurred when the negotiations for a contract under which the company would provide catering services to members of the International Olympics Committee collapsed because the parties could not agree on the contract terms.

As a result, the company lost the contract and the financial benefits that could have arisen out of it. Therefore, the company needs to ensure that its interests are in tandem with the English contract law. Also, there is need for the company to review its terms of agreement to avoid a situation such as that of Miah where the former director of the company enters into contract with the immediate potential client of the company. In regard to the cancellation of contract offered to Mixurs Ltd, it was in order as the company was exercising the right to cancel a contract stated on the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work Regulations 2008 Act Article 8(1-6) (The National Archives, 2008).

However, it would be advisable that the company should exercise caution when entering in contract with other companies when intending to purchase. This will be crucial in ensuring that the company does not incur losses or get substandard equipments (Taylor, 2009, p. 101). Concerning the second scenario where the negotiations between the company and the International Olympics Committee collapsed, it is important that such occurrences should be avoided or minimized in the future. It is no doubt that such a contract would have not only offer the company financial benefits but boost its quest to becoming the leading provider of catering services in the forthcoming 2012 Olympic games.

Losing such a contract was not desirable for the company’s business prospects. The company should know that it should not necessarily bid the adequate price but, rather, the consideration should be of sufficient value in the eyes of the law (Keenan, 2006, p. 29). As the Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960) AC 87 showed, the offeror needs to make a consideration that is sufficient and not necessarily adequate (Sealy and Worthington 2010, p. 45). Applying this in the contract might not have afforded Pedro’s company the financial rewards they intended but would have provided them with the opportunity to maintain International Olympic Committee as a client for future services, especially in the forthcoming 2012 Olympics games, hence, more revenues in the future.

Apart from that, hosting of such high profile clients would have boosted the reputation of the company thus attracting more clients which will translate to more revenues. It can be argued strongly that Miah was not comfortable with the contract terms of the POL Ltd to International Olympics Committee which he may have seen to cost the company both the revenues and the reputation. He was, thus, convinced that it was more worth to resign from the company’s directorship and open his own restaurant in order to gain benefit from providing services to International Olympics Committee both at that time and in the future.

As noted, the company’s other problem arise from the terms of agreement for the