Why Pete Should Not Get Punished under Court of Law - Case Study Example

Swarna1 Word count 1916 ID # 5448 d 16th April 2009 Business Law Case study Pete is a former student of London Metropolitan University who has started his own Internet based company, BL1X01, with certain success and is planning expanding the firm’s operations into the mobile sector. In order to acquire the best and newest equipment he organized a tender and published the conditions in the Mobile and Wireless Hardware magazine. The conditions stated that there was a tender for the supply of transmitting equipment, antennas and relaying machinery to cover major urban areas, some technical specifications, that the purchaser was willing to pay up to ten million Pounds (₤10,000,000) and a note saying that every tender received before 27 February 2009 at noon would be given full consideration. Free Wire Ltd submitted a tender complying with all the conditions and a price of ₤9,800,000; Move it Ltd made a proposal with different conditions tendering to supply equipment for urban and rural areas too for ₤11,000,000; and Medium Ltd submitted a tender widening the area of coverage with a better a newer technology for ₤9,500,000. However, Medium Ltd’s proposal was received on 27 February at 11:30 but not noticed by Pete’s assistant until 14:30, well after Pete had notified Move it Ltd that he had decided to accept their proposal at 11:45. Assessment Criteria: 1. Clear analysis of the issues under the present case study Business law assumes prime importance as far as the interests of the customers are concerned. It emphasises on 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). However, Peter has not violated the contract law in the present case. Pete has advertised the tender and deadline was fixed as 27th Noon February 2009 and according to deadline if Medium Ltd.’s tender was denied, it appears that Pete has committed a mistake in selection of tender. Moreover, due to mistake committed by Pete’s assistant, the offer of tender given to Move it ltd was not intentional in nature. 2. Analytical discussion of the legal issues The buyer or seller has the choice to appeal his case in English court of law if the terms of the contract are violated (Pollock, 1952)) between two persons or parties. The violation of terms of contract in tender calls is governed ultimately by English contract law. In the present case study, it is clearly apparent that Pete has committed a mistake in accordance with the contract law provisions. However, it was not intentional in nature. There is every possibility that he may be drawn to court of law for reconsideration of his decision. The contract law mentions that once the agreement is made, the terms and conditions must be accurately followed with minor exceptions only with sufficient justification. Hence the Medium Ltd. may file a case against Pete in the court of law to get the justice. If he is found guilty in sanctioning tender to Move it Ltd., it would be considered as violation with the principles of European contract law (Ole Lando et al., 2003; The commission on European contract law, 1999). The English contract law also prohibits the actions relating to the breach of contract (Samuel Williston, 1903). It was also found to be against the fair trading and hence comes under unfair contract terms act (1977). The unfair contract terms act (1979) declares that in relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness for the purposes of this part of this act is to be met. Similarly, it further clarifies that the term should be a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances. The principle of reasonableness has to be found violated by the Pete. However, it doesn’t sound logical in confirming the decision of Pete as intentional. The relevance of reasonableness in solving neglected legal cases was also noticed by Richard W. Right (2002). Hence, Pete should take advantage of this principle of reasonableness. Similarly, the principles of European contract law and international commerce laws should be interpreted well by Pete before construction of case for best judgment of contract law related cases (Ewan Mc Kendrick, 2005). Moreover, Pete 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 Medium Ltd. before he finalized the contract with another party. As he has no intention to cause disadvantage to Medium ltd., he has strong chances of defending his case provided he addresses the legal issues logically. In the present case, Pete mentioned in tender notification that he will prefer parties who submit tenders before 27th Noon February 2009 which he couldn’t follow. However, the problem lies in miscommunication from his assistant. Hence he was not intentional in avoiding Medium Ltd. Hence it will not be proper to state that Pete would be made guilty for the incident. Moreover, legal matters would not put Pete in to trouble if the matter is dealt in the following manner. First of all, Pete has not committed any thing with malafied intention. There are other conditions and specifications based on which he has right to decide the final party. Hence as far as the legal stand is concerned he has to be considered under safe zone. If no specific agreement between two Parties is made, as in case of Ball V Bridges (1874), the judgment can go in favour of Pete and hence it would not come under breach of contract or business law. Hence Pete under present study comes under this and he should not be made guilty as far as sale of his car is concerned. Had Pete really breached the business contract law as in cases of Denton V Stewart (1786); Greenaway V Adams (1806), he would be in a delicate situation. But he didn’t commit 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 Medium Ltd. represents the issue legally. There is no ground in which it can be proven that Pete has committed to offer tender to Move it Ltd. intentionally. Only point Medium Ltd. Can argue here is that Pete committed not to decide tender before 27th Noon February, which he didn’t follow leading to present scenario. It does not mean that he committed solidly to offer tender to Medium Ltd. His point of giving the deadline is to indicate that he would take decision on that specific day after examining the available options. Even had he decided to finalize tender after deadline 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 shouldn’t be treated under misrepresentation as in cases of Ahmed V Addy (2004), and Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd (1957) as no ground can be proved in which Pete has caused intentional damage to Medium Ltd. Moreover, Pete as an individual also enjoys 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 Pete has committed to transact at a fixed price and was written in the same language while communicating it to Medium Ltd.. Hence in this case the ethics have not been violated under the business law. In spite of all the supporting points discussed in the above paragraphs, there is a chance of strong representation from Medium Ltd. which may become troublesome for Pete if he doesn’t represent legal matters seriously. Pete received the information regarding offer amount of Medium Ltd. only on last day and couldn’t get information due to overlooking nature of his assistant and hence he cannot be made victimized under this case. As the communication was missing through direct contact and it was made through post and that too reached 2 hours before deadline, this should not be considered under guilty act (Dunlop V Higgins, 1848; Evans V Nicholson, 1875). CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overall, Pete should not get punished under court of law under present case as he didn’t violate any contract law intentionally. Even under reasonability test he cannot be found guilty. However, some legal issues relating to the business contract law are very much involved here, hence, Pete is strongly suggested 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 Medium Ltd.s’ offer and he has no intention of avoiding Medium Ltd. He should also provide grounds for not entering in to one to one written agreement with Medium Ltd. and he must prove that he has not violated principle of reasonableness in any way. As the chances of proving all these grounds are very much available with Pete he would certainly be protected in case legal battle arises. Pete may also explore the possibility of solving this issue by entering in to direct negotiation with Medium Ltd.(in case court case is filed by Medium Ltd.) quoting all his justifications, if Medium Ltd gets convinced, the court case can be avoided which saves lot of time, money and resources. References Ahmed V Addy (2004). EWHC 1465 (QB). Ball V Bridges (1874). 22 WR 552, 30 LT 430. 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. Ewan Mc Kendrick. (2005), Contract law, Palgrave Mcmilan publication, P:512. ISBN : 1403948690. Evans V Nicholson (1875). 32 LT 778 Greenaway V Adams (1806). 12 Ves 395. Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd (1957). 1 QB 247. Ole Lando, Eric Clive, Andre Prum, Reinhard Zimmerman (2003), principles of European contract law. Part 3, Kluwer Law international publication. P:352. ISBN: 9041119612. John D. Ashcroft and Janet Ashcroft (2007). Law for business. South Western College publisher. 16th edition. ISBN-10: 0324381573. Pollock, (1952). Principles of Contract (13th Edn, London). 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. Richard. W. Wright. (2002), Justice and Reasonable Care in Negligence Law, American Journal of Jurisprudence, Vol. 47, p. 143. Samuel Williston. (1903), Rescission for Breach of Warranty, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 7 , pp. 465-475. Steven J. Burton and Melvin Aron Eisenberg (2005). Contract law: Selected source materials 2005. West Publisher. P:609. ISBN-10: 0314160000. The commission on European contract law. 1999, Principles of European contract law. Part 1 &2, Brill publication, P:512.ISBN: 9041113053. Read More