Business Law Case Analysis - Essay Example

and Section # of Business Law Case Analysis Plaintiff: Ramirez Defendant: Nguyen Relevant Facts 1. That the plaintiff is the supplier, while defendant is the customer.2. That the plaintiff will deliver the building to the defendant on December 1st.3. That plaintiff will bear reduction in contract price of $1,500 per each day that he delays from December 1st.4. That plaintiff was unable to finish the work on time, and delivered the building on Dec 15th; 14 days beyond the agreed date.5. That the 3-day delay was due to plaintiff’s supplier’s fault, while the 11 day delay was due to the strike of the workers belonging to plaintiff. 6. That defendant has paid all dues but $21,000 that pertain to 14-day delay by plaintiff.

IssuePlaintiff has appealed in the court that the delay was not due to his own fault and thus the amount of $21,000 shall be reimbursed by the defendant.The defendant, as per the contract has withheld the amount of $21,000 AND that the delay was by no means is defendant’s fault.DecisionThat the plaintiff cannot ask for the reimbursement of $21,000 and the amount shall be withheld with the defendant.SupportThe contract that was signed between the plaintiff and defendant is valid according to the section 10 of the contract act 1872.

Therefore, the law binds the plaintiff to deliver the building to the defendant on an agreed time. Section 13 and 14 also favor the defendant, where we can witness that the offer was made by the defendant with one condition, moreover the defendant never forced plaintiff to agree upon his terms. Furthermore, According to the section 55 of the contract act 1872:If it was not the intention of the parties that time should be of the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing at or before the specified time; but the promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure.

(Section 52, Contract Act 1872)The delay caused by the supplier and workers of the plaintiff gives the right to the defendant to cut down the losses or compensation as per the agreed terms. Therefore the defendant has no need to reimburse the $21,000 that he withheld due to the incident caused by plaintiff or his parties.DissentAs the delay has been due to the supplier’s act then the plaintiff can file the appeal against suppliers and if the court deems it appropriate can, then the plaintiff can reimburse the due share.

While the workers are the part of the organization, therefore such liability and risk falls upon the company itself.Works CitedMeiners, R. E. Ringleb, A. H. Edwards, F. L. The Legal Environment of Busniess. Centage Learning (2011).