Quality in the Work Environment - Assignment Example

Part 2 Scenario Richard, Alan and Raymond were partners of the firm RAR Builders. Richard sent an offer to HY Associates to construct a scafold seating Bank for a sum of L- 20000 for an out door event. The offer was sent on a form containing RAR’s business terms and conditions. One of the terms was that the agreed price would be varied according to the cost and availability of labor. HY Associates replied in their letter containing standard terms to RAR. HY Associates informed RAR that they wanted the seating for an event on July 12th and the work is to be completed before one week of the event. HY’s letter did not mention anything about the price variation in their letter. In their letter they clearly stated that the order was not valid if acceptance was not concerned by return of post. RAR did not sent confirmation of acceptance but started the work immediately. RAR completed the work of seating bank doing the first week starting 27th June. Meanwhile HY Associates wanted to cancel the event and they posted another letter on 23rd June to RAR informing that they do not want to proceed in the matter. RAR received the letter on 29th but having started the work they completed it. RAR sent an account for 24 thousand pounds to HY Associates which was refused to pay. Richard threatens to sue HY Associates. Richard’s partners Alan and Raymond have not taken a decision as to whether they should join Richard. Report In this case the law is in favor of RAR. RAR is the offerer and HY Associates the offeree. If the terms and conditions of the offerer RAR were not acceptable, HY Associates had to reject the offer. HY Associates did not reject the terms and conditions put forward by RAR where as HY sent the reply with an insistence that the offerer should confirm the acceptance of order by return of post. The English contract Law says that a reply to an offer which purports to be an acceptance but which contains or different terms which do not materially alter the terms of the offer shall constitute an acceptance unless the offerer objects to the discrepancy. If the offerer does not make his objection the terms of the contract shall be the terms of the offer with the modifications contained in the acceptance. Here HY Associates’ condition in the reply was that RAR should confirm the acceptance by return of post. Actually HY Associates are the persons to accept the offer and they are the party to confirm the acceptance of the offer. The contract is concluded when HY Associates sent the reply to RAR. HY’s conditions do not alter the conditions of RAR and so it cannot be said that it is a counter offer. Being not a counter offer it is clear that HY Associates have accepted the offer with the conditions of RAR. Here offerer RAR and the offeree HY Associates communicated each other through post. According to the law an offer sent by post must be accepted through post. At the moment HY Associates posted the reply to RAR they have accepted the contract. The offerer had clearly put his terms and conditions including the price. If that was not acceptable the offer had to be rejected. Moreover HY Associates asked the offerer that the work is to be completed by July 20th. While sending such a reply HY Associates had no intention to reject the offer. In fact HY Associates intention was to accept the offer put forward by RAR and get the work completed before one week of the event. RAR’s stance is correct. Their offer as per the terms and conditions is to be considered as accepted by HY Associates. They did not send a reply to HY Associates because there was nothing in the letter of HY Associates altering the conditions of offer. Only if there was any thing which RAR could not accept, they need to have sent a reply pointing out the discrepancy in the terms and conditions. Even if a letter is not sent by return of post as insisted by HY Associates it is to be considered that their offer has been accepted by HY Associates. RAR has every right to get the cost of the work done for HY Associates. They are right when they sent the accounts for a sum of 24 thousand pounds as they had put the price variation condition in their offer. What the law says is that the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified. The acceptor cannot accept the offer with a condition that materially changes the conditions of the offer. If the acceptor puts any condition in his acceptance it is not an absolute and unqualified acceptance. It is only a counter offer. In such a situation the offer is considered to be rejected. Here HY Associates wanted RAR to inform the acceptance of the order by return of post. At any criteria that was not a rejection by HY Associates. By asking to confirm the acceptance of the offerer by return of post, HY Associates cannot withdraw from the contract. They are bound by the terms of the contract. RAR did not want the acceptance in a particular mode and the usual mode is enough to constitute the acceptance. The question to be considered here is whether a formal contract has taken place or not. The definite answer is that a contract has been concluded between RAR Builders and HY Associates. If the reply of HY Associates sent to RAR was a rejection of the offer HY Associates need not had to inform RAR that they are cancelling the event and RAR need not proceed with the work. Having sent a reply like this HY Associates again revealed that they had accepted the contract. Being partners of the firm RAR Builders, Alan and Raymond need not take any steps to sue HY Associates. The action of Richard as a partner of the firm is binding on the other partners. The law is clear in the matter and it is against HY Associates. The defence of HY Associates is weak in this case. My opinion is that they can try for a compromise out of court. Since RAR builders failed to send a confirmation letter to HY Associates as required, they have a moral responsibility to share the loss. Strictly speaking they may not be guilty. But the negligence on their part cannot be ignored. Town Planning and Building Control 1. Outline the flaws and efficiencies in the current system of planning and briefly summarize in your own words the reason for change. The present planning system is not capable enough to make development as envisaged because of its inherent flaws. The current planning system; the basic structure of which is 50 years old is not need based and it is complex and had to understand by the common people. There should not be any difficult to access but unfortunately there is. The existing planning system is obsolete and often finds in congruency between departments. It lacks confidence of different groups in the community and it fails to deliver friendly service from the planning department. Delay in decision making is attributed to be a major flaw in the ongoing planning system which results in loss of competitiveness and public confidence. Even though the current system intends to get the involvement of the community, it fails to do so which leaves an impression that the planning is for ones who have the greatest stamina. The system is not functioning as user of friendly. The customer finds it difficult to get the correct advice on their application. The present system does not have ample power to enforce planning control, which gives an indication that the planning is not strictly enforced. It does not mean that the present system lacks efficiency. Preserving the landscapes in national parks and areas of outstanding beauty, many best building, maintaining green belts to prevent urban sprawl, regeneration of town centers, reuse of urban brown land etc. are examples of the efficiency of the present planning system. 2. What is plan led system of development control? What proposals are put forward for reform of this system? Plan led system of development control is the procedure for getting approval for building construction in England. Districts and unitary authorities are the authorities to determine what type of construction are to be taken place locally. Plans for building constructions normally get approval if it comes within the frame work of development plan unless there are ‘material considerations’ like national policy statements or changes in local circumstance require other wise. Since the local plans are obsolete there are possibilities of applying material considerations in planning applications. Though it sounds better, the plan led system of development control needs reformation. The first and foremost thing is that the community should be given more opportunity for the preparation of development plans. Involvement of community will bring out the unforeseen impracticability of the plan if any besides providing a sense of feeling that they too are taking part in the planning process. Simplification of hierarchy and making clear the roll of each one in the line and reducing the number of tiers would make the development control system more effective. The development control system should make the improvement in integrating the local strategies and plans. The plan led system should be in a position to deliver shorter plans at local level, which can easily be adopted and revised more easily and quickly. What is needed is a plan led development, which replaces the out, dated local plans and at the same time giving heed to the local requirement. 3. A new single level of plan is proposed to replace existing requirements for structure plans, local plans and unitary development plans. What might this be known as and of what will it comprise? The existing structure plans, local plans and the unitary development plans are proposed to be replaced with a new single level of plan known as ‘local development frame work’. The framework consists of some very important suggestions. a) The local authority will according to the vision and strategy form the development plans in the area of the local authority. It is the responsibility of the local authority to implement development plans and enforces the development control system in the area. b) The frame work will have a clear statement and action plan pertaining to the development that is to be taken place in urban extension areas, town centers where frequent changes are occurred and neighborhoods where renewal works are going on. c) The proposal will have a map showing the existing places that are to be conserved and places that require change because of various factors such as over crowding, lack of basic facilities and infrastructure. The intention is to have a complete idea of the development that is to be taken place in definite areas and leaving no place unnoticed. d) The proposal enables to prepare plans within a short span of time and up to date. It gives ample opportunity for community participation in plan development. 4. Do you think the proposal put forward will be effective? Give reasons for your answer. I think the proposal for the local development framework will be very effective. The gist of the proposal is the statement of core policies. It sets out the long-term development of the area. The proposal contains the visions of the local authority in developing a plan suited to its area within a definite time. The local community will endorse the development plan as it reflects their wishes and visions. The development is criteria based and need based. The proposal takes into account the development of urban areas. Unscrupulous constructions and land development taking place in such areas would be brought under control. I would say that the proposal is environment friendly. The need of the hour is sustainable development. The proposal would be effective as it is not an unwarranted action. Before going in for development it maps out the complete area and ascertains where the development is to take place. The proposal would enable the planners to prepare comprehensive plans within a short span of time. 5. Outline important shortcomings with the current system of building control and briefly summarize in your own words the reasons given for change. The current system does not have accepted future vision as to what should be building control system. The functions and responsibilities of each one performing within the system are not clear. The system is to be revamped with a clear future vision. Each one functioning within the system should know clearly his/her roll. The different regulatory regimes are to be joined for improving the efficiency of the system. The present system does not consider the stakeholders to be important and their opinions about the system seldom recognized and they feel unimportant in development matters. The system should be simple and user friendly. The apprehensions of the stakeholders about the building control system are to be removed. Building control regulation and approved documents needs simplification. Informed customers involve more in the planning process. In place of peace-meal review of building regulation consequent to which the customers find it difficult to adapt the changes, a comprehensive review within a longer time will mitigate the difficulties of the customers. The existing system lacks adequate enforcement power, which is to be set right with enough power reposed in the regulation. 6. What are options in the package? Do you think the proposal put forward will be effective? Give reasons for your answer. The options in the package contain: Setting a future vision and strategy in the building control system. Modernize the system with risk based inspection and enforcement. Introduce paperless administration with e governance and minimize the burden. Customer oriented approach –simplification of guidance and other tools to aid individual compliance. Stability in planning –fixed long term regulation avoiding piece meal review. Performance management and future capacity. Setting a future vision will direct regulation in the right path describing each one involved in the system. The system can be implemented effectively with the modernization of the present set up. Giving education at the site, proper inspection and suitable sanctions are capable enough to enforce the regulation. Introducing e governance will reduce the time required for administration and burden of the public. A clear, simple and customer friendly regulation will bring public support for its implementation. Avoiding frequent piece-meal review and changes would give stability to planning. Capacity building would increase the efficiency of employees for which the resources set apart should be utilized for timely trainings and developments. Read More