Application of Commercial Law - CompuHelp and the Office Supply - Case Study Example

Application of Commercial Law Student’s Name Institution’s Name Commercial Law Introduction In the corporate world, there are laws which govern daily operation between organizations and entities which interact with each other and constantly enter into deals and contracts. It is these regulations that form the basis for resolving any form of disputes that might arise between these entities. These legal parameters also act as frame work upon which justice is achieved. They hold to reconcile the disagreements between the complainant and the accused so that whoever is wrong compensates those who have been wronged for the damage made on their businesses (Anderson, 2012). Issue The commercial laws oversee how different entities involved in wealth creation solve their disputes in an amicable way to avoid unnecessary conflicts. These decrees also help to judge, basing on logical aspects of determining who is on the wrong. This depends on the terms of contract between the Business partners involved. Further to that the possible solutions to the disputes are agreed upon by the partners referring to their constitutional rulings. Under the instance of CompuHelp and the Office supply, the commercial rules are breached by both parties. John, the proprietor assumes the firm was offering free promotional services for a year as the other part failed sign the contract terms (Clarke & Collie, 2003). In contracting, an offer is specified to one entity while the other signs the acceptance by agreeing to terms and conditions. The entity that receives the offer has to give service or commodity in return. This is the equivalent value to the offer assigned termed as Quid-pro-Quo in economics. This therefore, implies that a deal or contract cannot be signed if both the parties have not agreed on the offer that each is making on the contract. The other important aspect of any contract is the acceptance; both the entity has to show that they are contented with the contract that is being entered into. This can be done by upending their signatures to illustrate their commitment to adhere by the terms of the contract being signed. For the case of Office supply vs CompuHelp, they are both held by failures in contracting properly as per the commercial law. The latter communication valuing the services at $100 against the initial $000, to the office supply means was free for partnering with them for the first year (Ellickson, 2014). Ruling For any entity before making their signature on the contract as a sign that they are contented with the terms of the contract. It is important to evaluate and understand the considerations the other party is offering for the agreement. Any disputes can therefore be solved in reference to the contract terms. CompHelp vs office supply implies the both parties are confirmed guilty. Though the benefit of Ignorance may work against CompHelp, the Office supply had the responsibility to follow-up the contract before settling fully. The court tries to investigate whether the parties were in agreement by revising the contract. This question provides the grounds for resolving the dispute between CompHelp versus Office Supply. The dispute may be disqualified because the contract was not enforceable. The contract terms were dishonored by CompHelp for failing to notify their client of the terms in the deed. (Posner, 2003, Pigou, 2000). A contract is only valid when the parties involved are legally enforced to abide by the terms of agreements. These covenants are bound by the parties upending their signatures as a sign that they are ready to comply with terms of operation. In the event that the contract has only signature from one party it is not seen as a complete contract. In the case, CompHelp failed to sign the agreement with Office supply. This mean there are no legal procedures which can be enacted against the John’s for failing to cooperate (Posner, 2011). Analysis According to the uniform commercial code, there is no case since no agreed terms of the contract. CompHelp did not sign its part. It was therefore obligation of the Office Supply entity to request for a copy of the signed contract from the CompHelp entity to confirm the terms of the contract. This did not happen therefore the case which Office Supply has waged against CompHelp hence considered null and void for lacking base of contention (Trebilcock, 1993). In this case there are limited chances that Office Supply will win the case against CompHelp. This is because it did not sign the contract to show confirmation of the contract signed by the office supply. The lawsuit signed against CompHelp by Office Supply, has no substantial legal base on which it can be heard as it appears it was a one party contract. The convention itself is incomplete and according to commercial laws, has no judgmental description as the accused is innocent (Whittman, 2003). CompHelp has a number of defense against Office Supply complaints on breach of the contract. For one, CompHelp did not sign the contract document, they are therefore not bound in any way by legal parameters which govern contracts. Secondly, for a contract to hold, both parties have to seek clarification of every detail contained in the contract form avoid misunderstandings and misinterpretation of the terms therein. The entity to be served should seek clarification of information that the serving entity is offering so that the contract is signed when everything is clear to both parties. This did not happened; instead, Office Supply signed the contract document based on assumption minus asking for further clarification of the information in the contract document. In this case the CompHelp entity has no obligation to take up the consequences that arises because there were no enquiries made to it before the other party signed the contract, the other party did not make any form of consultation or sought for further information on clarity of the contract and it’s is base (Trebilcock, 1993) Based on uniform commercial code, Office Supply claim is immaterial because the entity it is suing did not approved the agreements. The other aspect is that in the contract the payment rates were not specified to be of importance hence the entity cannot sue CompHelp because the claim it has against CompHelp were not detailed in the contract that it is claiming to have signed with the company. Another thing is that it alleges that they entered into a contract with an entity whose signed is not in the contract file. It therefore means that the company made contract with non-existing entity. Another thing Office Supply has no document to support its claim. The contract document was not sent to them, they are therefore not legally part of the contract that was made (Posner, 2011). CompHelp can also argue that there was no intermediary or an impartial body to act as witness of the contract being signed. This makes the contract to be nonexistence because there is no third party that would help to verify that the initial contract paper had different terms to the current one. In this situation, It is difficult to substantiate that the CompHelp Company has breached the contract or not (Posner, 2003). In the event that CompHelp is found to have breached the contract, the body might be forced to first cater for the court charges incurred by Office Supply for filling the case against them. This is because it causes financial damage to the firm by compelling it to use it finances to take the matter to the court and get it resolved. The other possible remedy is that CompHelp might be obliged to offer the maintenance service for free to Office supply. This is because that is what the initial contract document contained. It is also possible that the entity will be compelled to repay for finances that Office Supply used to purchase the computers because the purchase of computers came as a result of misleading in the engagement document (Pigou, 2000). This will be imposed on CompHelp for giving misleading information to it business partner hence forcing it to enter into financial problem. Lastly, any other form of financial problems that Office Supply might have incurred due to confusing contract terms that was given to them by CompHelp should be a responsibility of CompHelp. When this is done, It will be a fair way for dealing with this contract breach. These remedies will only take effect in the event that the CompHelp entity is found to be guilty of having breached the contract. This will be possible if Office Supply provide enough evidence to support their claim against CompHelp (Ellickson, 2014). Conclusion In most cases when disputes arises under contract it is important for the complaining party to present substantial evidence which will help to prove that the accused party actually breached the agreement that the two entities entered into. Minus this the complaining party is likely to risk being fined for having accused the other party falsely. Therefore whenever there is a breach of contract the parties involved might want to reinforce the contract to its terms of agreement. In this case business entities are always advised to resolve the conflict using the legal process (Clarke & Collie, 2003). In case of a situation where a law suit is file there is fee paid for this, this fee is normally paid back by the party which is found guilty as form of compensation for affecting the complaining party financially. In such instance all other damages that e complaining part might have incurred as a result of failure to honor the contract are refunded by the entity which was complained against. This is normally done so as to restore affected party back to its initial condition before effect of the contract failure. Despite the law suit as the most common form of resolving contract dispute, there are also other forms which can be utilized. This includes use of a third party to review the contract made between the two parties and establish which party is wrong. When this has been established, the party which went against the agreement is expected to recommit itself to the contract and pay back any form of harm that its non-commitment might have cause the other firm. This can be in form of finances or any other means which will ensure that the third party`s condition is restored back to its normal condition (Anderson, 2012). References Anderson, T. (2012). Sovereign nations or reservations? An economic history of American indians, Perc: San Francisco. Clarke, R. & Collie, D. (2003). ‘Product differentiation and the gains from trade under betrand duopoly’, Canadian Journal of Economics,36,3,658-673. Ellickson, R. (2014). Order without law: How neighbours settle disputes, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Pigou, A. (2000). The economics of welfare, 4th ed., Macmillan: London. Posner, E. (2003). ‘Economic analysis of contract law after three decades: success or failure? Yale Law Journal 112,4,829-880. Posner, R. (2011). Economic analysis of law 4th ed., Little Brown and Co: Boston. Trebilcock, M. (1993). The limits of freedom of contract Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Whittman, D. (2003). Economic analysis of the law: Selected readings, Blackwell Publishing: Malden. Read More