Case Brief - McGurn v Bell - Essay Example

Case Brief RE: McGurn v. Bell Microproducts, Inc. Facts George McGurn met with the president of the Bell microproducts who gave the position of the company. At that meeting, gave a condition that for him to take the employment offer by Bell, he should be issued with a contract in the written form inclusive a termination clause specifying that in case his contract was terminated he will be given half his commissions plus six months’ salary. Following several discussions with an official from Bell, Bell issued him with a contract devoid of the termination clause which he rejected.

During one of these discussions, McGurn said that a termination clause covering his initial twenty four months of service was considerable which he says Bell did not object to this. Bell extended another offer which McGurn rejected owing to its termination clause. Finally, Bell extended an offer to McGurn which said that following termination of his employment, he was to be given his basic salary over 6 months plus a lump sum amounting to forty thousand dollars or fifty percent of incentive p.a. but this cover was to last for the initial 12months of his service.

McGurn signed as required but crossed out the word ‘twelve” and inserted “eleven” and didn’t inform anyone at Bell of the alteration. Bell’s HRM department received and filed the letter though they denied having viewed it on return. After approximately 13 months, Mcgurn’s employment was terminated, he advised Bell officials that he believed that his contract had a 2year termination clause; they also noted the alteration in the offer letter but refused to pay hence McGurn sued for bleach of contract.

Type of ActionAn exception to the rule that offerees who accept an offeror’s performance with the knowledge of offeror’s expectation in return for his performance have impliedly accepted the offeror’s terms. This happens where the offeree receives the advantages of the service offered with a reasonable opportunity to decline them plus grounds to recognize that they were accepted with the anticipation of recompense (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers and Langvardt, 2004). The court borrowed the procedure from two case i.e. Gateway C. v. Charlotte Theatres, Inc.

and Kiddlerv Greenman.IssuesWhether Bell accepted McGurn’s counteroffer and the reasons in law as to why Bell is obliged to revisit the offer it wrote and signed earlier after it has been countersigned and returned by McGurn.Court HoldingThe Bell’s silence amounted to acceptance of McGurn’s counteroffer. The Bell microproducts, Inc. should to revisit the offer it wrote and signed earlier after it has been countersigned and returned by McGurn.Rationale for HoldingFor the first issue, the general rule of law holds that silence in reply to an offer aimed at forming a contract doesn’t add up to an acceptance of the same (Mallor, et al., 2004). However the rule of law applied to the facts is the exception in circumstances where the offeree receives the advantages of the service offered with a reasonable opportunity to decline them plus grounds to recognize that they were accepted with the anticipation of recompense (Mallor, et al., 2004). For the 2nd issue, the general rule of law holds that unless it is established from the records that Bell had grounds to recognize or already knew of the alteration by McGurn to what it had written and that the District courts spots to zero facts from the record that the silence by Bell as a fact in law amounted to the acceptance of the counteroffer by McGurn.

However the rule of law applied to the facts is that “a presumably sophisticated employer, who receives a signed letter of engagement from a prospective employee and fails to read the letter, particularly after weeks of negotiation, does so at its own peril.”Dissenting OpinionWhether Bell microproducts, Inc. should to revisit the offer it wrote and signed earlier after it has been countersigned and returned by McGurn. The general rule of law holds that unless it is established from the records that Bell had grounds to recognize or already knew of the alteration by McGurn to what it had written and that the District courts spots to zero facts from the record that the silence by Bell as a fact in law amounted to the acceptance of the counteroffer by McGurn.

However the rule of law applied to the facts is that If the law or else the view of the majority applied to its rational intense, the offeree might define his/her tasks afresh in absolute terms easily by means of placing a claim that he/she wasn’t conscious of what it has put in its records as obviously demonstrated hence raising a uncertainty.Legal analysisI agree with the court’s reasoning that Bell cannot escape the contract liability by simply acknowledging that it ignored to examine the exceedingly vital document necessary for the contract formation particularly in its own files for such a long duration.

This is because, the act amounts to negligence or pretence in an effort to escape its responsibilities. I also agree the court’s reasoning that Bell should re-read the counteroffer because ignorance of law is no defense and also failing to do so amounts to negligence on their side.ReferencesAtiyah, P.S. (1979). The rise and fall of freedom of Contract. Broadbridge: Clarendon Press Gloucestershire Ltd.Barnett, R.E. (2003). Contracts. New York: Aspen Publishers, Inc.Beale, H. (2002). Contract Law.

UK: Hart Publishing.Mallor, J.P., Barnes, A.J., Bowers, L.T., and Langvardt, A.W. (2004). Business Law: The Ethical, Global and E-commerce Environment. 13th Ed. Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw Hill.McKendrick, E. (2005). Contract Law: Text, Cases and Materials. UK: Oxford University Press.