International Business Law - Report Example

International Business Law Table of Contents Qs a) (a) Meaning of a Counter-Offer and Its Effect 3 Qs a) (b) Meaning of Acceptance To Contract and Its Effect 3 Qs. 1(a) (c) Meaning of the Postal Rule and Its Effect 4 Qs. 1(b) Advice to Paul Regarding the Incident 4 Qs. 1(a) (a) Meaning of a Counter-Offer and Its Effect A counter offer is a position wherein a particular offeree make suitable response to a specific offer in terms of making the same based on diverse terms. The vital effect or consequence of a counter-offer is to lessen the power of the sellers (Government of Alberta, 2014; Allen & Overy, n.d.). This can be well explained with the help of an example. In relation to the case of ‘Hyde v Wrench’, Wrench as the defendant wanted to sell his firm to Hyde (plaintiff) for £1000. Hyde rejected the offer due to such high price. Hyde later offered the price of £950, but Wrench refuses to accept the price. After this, Wrench refused to sell the firm to Hyde, as he believed that Hyde did not stick to the rules and finally terminated the contract. This case clearly depicts the effect of a counter- offer, as this finally led towards terminating the offer (Clarke, 2010). Qs. 1(a) (b) Meaning of Acceptance Subject To Contract and Its Effect A contract is not valid until an offer gets accepted by any individual or party. Once a party accepts a specific contract, the acceptance of the same then emerges (Brett, 2011; Butler, 2007). This can be well understood by taking into concern a case example of ‘Adams v. Lindsell.’ Lindsell (defendant) as a dealer of wool has sent a letter to Adam (plaintiff) for selling certain quantities of wool in the respective business markets. The offer was made and thus send through a regular post. Lindsell send the letter to Adam and expected to get a response from Adam. However, it was found that Lindsell have posted the letter with wrong address. Thus, due to the wrong address mentioned on the letter, the letter could not reach to Adam on time. Due to this negligence and thereby not receiving letter from Adam on time, Lindsell sold all the allocated quantities of wool to third party. Adam thus filed a breach of contract towards Lindsell. The trial court found that the acceptance held by Adams was valid and due to wrong address written by the defendant caused this incident to happen. In response, Lindsell appealed to high court for reversal of the decisions made by the lower court (Carrington, 2011). Thus, this case revealed that improper acceptance of an offer imposes adverse effects, resulting in filing cases and most crucially bearing huge financial loss as penalty. Qs. 1(a) (c) Meaning of the Postal Rule and Its Effect The ‘postal rule’ relating to the acceptance or approval of an offer in the context of contract law represents that an offer, which is being made through letter/post, is ineffective until an offeree is accepting the letter within a specified time period (Ibrahim & et. al, 2007; Shafi, 2011; MIK, 2009). Specially mentioning, the facet of ‘postal rule’ can be better undertstood by the way it operates. For this, the above case of Adams v. Lindsell has been elaborated. Lindsell (defendant) as a wool dealer sent a letter to Adam (plaintiff) for selling the same in respective business markets. The offer was send through a regular post/letter, which clearly depicted the consequences that Lindsell faced (Carrington, 2011). Qs. 1(b) Advice to Paul Regarding the Incident From the provided case, it can be ascertained that Paul being the managing director at Hotel Paradise plc has given the responsibility to arrange a party for one of the important business clients named Rich Bankers plc. The guests who attended the party tried out the new champagne, which got manufactured in Italy. Notably, one of the guests found a cockroach in her glass, which appeared directly from the bottle. It was apparently noted that she became highly upset because of the view and later found to be admit in hospital. By taking into concern the above incident, it can be advised to Paul that there does not lay any liability for the hotel towards the guest who found to be in hospital after trying out the new champagne. This can be justified with reference to the fact that though the party hosted by Hotel Paradise, the new champagne was delivered by third party to the hotel. It would be vital to mention that it is the bottler, who is mainly liable to pay the compensation to the hotel owing to the negligence performed, which eventually caused the guest to get hospitalized due to such incident. The above discussed incident can be well understood by taking into concern the case of “Oklahoma Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dillard.” This particular case revealed the applicability of the ‘doctrine of res ipsa loquitur’ in such condition wherein bottled beverage is provided to the pubic for human ingestion in its sealed container, and is observed to entail a dead cockroach. Moreover, relating to making damages and causing personal injuries, the case revealed that if the injuries of the plaintiff that have been caused by the defendant found to be permanent, the claim made by the plaintiff in providing monetary compensations will be rewarded. In this case, the plaintiff Jessie Dillard sued the defendant Oklahoma Coca-Cola Bottling Company and Safeway Stores, Inc. due to causing severe pain both physically and mentally to Dillard after finding a cockroach in the bottle of Coca-Cola (Justia, n.d.). In relation to the provided case, it can be affirmed that the aforesaid doctrine is also applicable in this case, as a prima facie negligence behaviour can be apparently observed on behalf of the bottler rather than the hotel. Thus, by taking into concern the above discussed aspects, it can be advised to Paul that he can file a case in opposition to the bottler along with the company. Moreover, Paul can also demand the bottler as well as the company to provide monetary compensation for being liable to cause physically harm to the guest who got admitted in the hospital. Since, the provided case or the incident does not provided much information about the injury of the plaintiff i.e. the guest whether permanent or temporary, the claim of the plaintiff about rewarding the financial compensations will be judged based on her health consequences. Thus, it is suggested to Paul to remain stick to the claims made by him for providing benefits to the plaintiff and proving himself to be not liable for causing physical harm to the guest. References Allen & Overy., No Date. Basic Principles of English Contract Law. Advocates for International Development. [Online] Available at: http://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/documents/english-contract-law.pdf [Accessed June 28, 2014]. Butler, A. E., 2007. A Practical Guide to the CISG: Negotiations through Litigations. Acceptance. [Online] Available at: http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/butler6-ch3.pdf Accessed June 28, 2014]. Brett, S., 2011. ‘Subject To Contract’: It’s Not What You Say; it’s What You Do..... Law. [Online] Available at: http://www.andlaw.eu/downloads/subject_to_contract.pdf [Accessed July 12, 2014]. Clarke, J., 2010. Hyde v Wrench. Australiancontractlaw. [Online] Available at: http://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/hyde.html [Accessed June 28, 2014]. Carrington, S., 2011. Classic Court Report: Adams v Lindsell (1818). Law. [Online] Available at: http://www.supplymanagement.com/law/court-reports/classic-court-report-adams-v-lindsell-181 [Accessed June 28, 2014]. Government of Alberta, 2014. What Is In A Contract?. Contracts. [Online] Available at: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/econ12829 [Accessed July 12, 2014]. Ibrahim, M. A. & et. al., 2007. The Postal Acceptance Rule in the Digital Age. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, Vol. 2, No.1, pp. 47-53. Justia, No Date. Oklahoma Coca-Cola Bottling Co. V. Dillard. Justia Law. [Online] Available at: http://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/1953/20989.htm [Accessed July 12, 2014]. MIK, E. K., 2009. The Effectiveness Of Acceptances Communicated By Electronic Means, Or – Does The Postal Acceptance Rule Apply To Email. Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. [Online] Available at: http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3006&context=sol_researc [Accessed June 28, 2014]. Shafi, S. N. A., 2011. Contract Law. NALSAR Law Review, Vol. 6. No. 1, pp. 187-199. Read More