Business Agreement Involving Maxwell and Sylvia - Coursework Example

Lecturer Analysis of Business Agreement Case Involving Maxwell and Sylvia The case study focuses on analyzing the contract and business agreement between Maxwell and Sylvia. Sylvia has an events management company, and thus she seeks the services of her brother, Maxwell, who is a qualified landscape architecture. The services in question involve the landscaping of the back garden, so as to make it attractive for potential business partners and clients. According to the contact, the service was supposed to be done by March 6, 20115; however, Maxwell completed the contract on March 9. 2015. The change in completion date negatively affected the initial events plan of Sylvia. Thus she decided not to pay her brother the agreed amount of 5,000. Additionally, she wanted Maxwell to pay 500 fees, for the marquee company that was supposed to provide marquee and furniture on hire basis. The paper illustrates that Maxwell did not adhere to the business agreement with Sylvia. This disrupted her business plans and hence she was forced to conduct the event indoors.1 Maxwell cannot claim the money from Sylvia due to breach of contract. Maxwell did not adhere to the expectations of the contract. The key expectation of the business agreement was to complete the landscaping activity by March 7, 2015. Maxwell did not achieve this goal despite adequately understanding that the landscaping project was very critical to the success of the outdoor event organized by Sylvia on March 7, 2015. The image of the events management company was negatively affected, because the clients did not see the quality and attractiveness of the final service that Sylvia aimed at providing. Thus, Sylvia is justified for declining the 5000 payment request by Maxwell; the delay that he caused led to the last minute change of plans for the outdoor event. The three issues are evident in the agreement between Maxwell and Sylvia. Firstly, Maxwell failed to accomplish activities as promised. He did not complete the landscaping work by March 6, 2015; this is despite providing adequate assurance to Sylvia that he has enough capabilities and resources to accomplish the agreed task within the agreement timelines. Secondly, Maxwell made it impossible for Sylvia to perform her business activities as planned. Sylvia intended to use the outdoor landscape to demonstrate her effectiveness to potential clients in the areas of outdoor events management. Her main objective for the March 7, 2015 event was to show potential clients what her events business is capable of providing. She was thus forced to conduct the event indoors; this raised the doubts of customers regarding the effectiveness of organizing successful outdoor events. Maxwell through his work actions, made it intentionally known that he does not have the ability of being effective with the landscaping project. He only worked on the project alone and during the evenings. The work actions illustrated minimal dedication and motivation to the job, and thus the project was delayed. Thus, Sylvia should not compensate Maxwell for the failed project efforts.2 Sylvia has the option of suing Maxwell, if he declines to pay the 500 to the marquee company. The 500 was to compensate for the cancellation of the marquee and furniture hiring services. Maxwell, can have adequate defense and escape paying the 500 because the contract was not in written form it was just a verbal agreement that cannot be adequately substantiated in a court of law. Sylvia can also decline to pay 5000 to Maxwell for services provided inappropriately, because anyway the contract was written. it was just a verbal agreement between two family members. Maxwell can thus not claim the money due to lack of written agreement. But Maxwell can try to seek redress in the small claims courts. The small claims court is not complex. It does not require representation by attorneys, and the legal procedures are relatively informal. However, this will still be challenging to Maxwell due to lack of adequate documentation or written contract. The amount under dispute is also minimal, 5000, thus the two parties must reach an agreement on how they intend to settle to conflict. Sylvia should not pay Maxwell any amount, due to the inconvenience caused to her first major business event. Bailey v Bullock (1950)3 explains that activities that cause major inconveniences to a business should not be compensated. Thus Maxwell should not be paid, because his project was finished at an irrelevant date and hence inconvenienced the public image of the events company and raised serious doubts and the ability of Sylvia to be effective and realize business obligations on a timely basis. The cases support the notion that Maxwell should not aim at seeking payment from Sylvia for projects that inconvenienced the core operation of the events management company. The actions of Maxwell in delaying completion of the contract reduced the future prospects of the events management company managed by Sylvia. This presents another key issue why Sylvia should not pay Maxwell for the landscaping services provided. The main intention of the event launching day (March 7, 2015) was to introduce quality product s and services that Sylvia, through her events management company, to potential clients. This goal was not adequately achieved, because the outdoor landscape for events was incomplete. The potential clients thus have adequate doubts on the ability of Sylvia to manage or launch successful outdoor events. It will take a lot of convincing from Sylvia to convince the target clients that she can successfully handle outdoor events, when her own product launching date was not a success. Dunk v George Waller (1970)4 case illustrates that compensation or payment should not be made to business activities that hinder the future success of a business. Speculative damages require business parties to decide the negative effects that a business activity may generate. The late completion of the landscaping project by Maxwell, illustrates future unseen losses that the events business may experience. Euro London Appointments Ltd. v Claessens (2006) explains the concept of speculative damages. Thus, Maxwell should not seek payment. The speculative effects that arose from delay of the landscaping project resulted into negative effects on business effectiveness. The nature of speculative damages is appropriately determined if there is a written agreement between the two business parties. However, in our case there is no illustration of a written business agreement between Maxwell and Sylvia. This presents a loophole for Sylvia to escape any legal action that requires her to pay Maxwell for the late services delivered. Maxwell cannot get money from Sylvia due to the issue of repudiation. Bettini v Gye (1876) illustrates that repudiation can be applied when a business agreement is not adhered to and it entails ending the contract.5 Sylvia can decide to end any business relationship with Maxwell, after he agrees to pay the 500 payment that was made to the marquee company. Maxwell engaged in unprofessional project activities, through intentionally delaying activities and thus the event of Sylvia was negatively affected. This qualifies for repudiation, because completion of the project did not serve the intended purpose. Maxwell breached the conditions of the business agreement which was very critical. The critical condition involved in the business agreement, was the completion of the landscape project by March 6, 2015. Sylvia quickly initiated last minute measures to conduct the event indoors. The two parties can also decide to engage in rescission. The rescission decision will ensure equity, by returning the two parties back to the pre-agreement position. This action will ensure effective resolution of the pay disputes that might arise in the execution of future contracts between the two parties. In Car & Universal Credit v Caldwell (1964)6, the parties were instructed to cancel of their business activities and agreements together, and then initiate the written agreement process afresh. Rescission enables the parties to address the mistakes and the misconceptions that are realized in the process of project and business execution. The two parties, Maxwell and Sylvia, should thus cancel any previous business agreements, and initiate fresh negotiations and contract in written form, that will assist in guiding their business projects. Thus, Maxwell should not receive any payments for the irrelevant service that was provided. In the next landscaping projects, Maxwell should be very keen on written agreements and strictly not illustrating family ties in business activities. The specific performance issue in business agreements entails telling one business party to realize their obligations. Maxwell should be strictly informed and required to achieve the expected business obligations effectively, efficiently and on a timely basis. To effectively ensure this, written business agreements should be made. Cohen v Roche (1927) illustrates the issue of specific performance.7 Each agreement party must work towards realizing what is expected of them in the most effective manner. This will assist in minimizing inconsistencies and inconvenience on the activities or operations of the other party. Thus Maxwell should not receive any form of payment until the agreement expectations on her part are effectively addressed. The cases study, therefore, illustrates that Maxwell was ineffective in realizing his agreement obligations. Sylvia should also engage in written agreements with business partners to minimize future disagreements. References Augustus, Henry. (2012). Leading Cases in Constitutional Law. Toronto: Carswell. Ewan, McKendrick. (2010). Contract Law - Text, Cases and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pattni, Atiyah. (2009). The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract. London: Clarendon Press. Randy, Barnett. (2013). Contracts. UK: Aspen Publishers. Scott, Fruehwald. (2009). "Reciprocal Altruism as the Basis for Contract." 47 University of Louisville Law Review 489. Read More