Legal Aspects of Contract Administration - Coursework Example

Legal Aspects of Contract Adminitration (LAW) Introduction: The term contract is an agreement among two or more groups that can be obligatory at law.The equivalent lawful ethics commonly apply at universal law to all categories of contracts. Ultimately, the strict request of the universal law has been impacted by the doctrine of equity, planned by the judges to control unconscionable contractual effects and encourage justice. Statute rule has changed or reinstated the universal law with respect to a variety of features of contract law. As the contracts law in any country, the contract law in Australia also has certain characteristics. The contract becomes valid only if it fulfilled all the legal requirements. Contract is the agreement enforceable by law so that agreement may be either for tender or for acceptance. The offer become valid only if it meets the entire requirement specified in the contract law in Australia. Those are as follows, may be through to a particular individual, a group of personnel, or to the whole globe; must be conversed with the offeror and offeree; must be distinguished from contact and an ‘request to contract; Must be apparent and plain. There are normally six important ingredients essential for lawfully connecting the contract development. That are (1) agreement it consists of offer and acceptances made by the parties to the contract, (2) Offer must be made for the Consideration either in terms of money, property etc., (3) ability to enter lawful relationship between the parties to the contract it means the party to the contract must possess sound mind as well as majority of age, (4) Intention by the groups to enter into lawful affiliations, (5) must fulfill the requirement of the valid contract and (6) certainty. Contract may sometimes also turn into illegal contract if it fails to fulfill the requirements. The Australian lawful scheme is based on a basic faith in the rule of law, fairness and the autonomy of the judiciary. An offer may be broken by revocation, rejection or drop. An acceptance is, usually conversation; a whole and ineffectual assent to the complete the circumstances that include an offer. Intentions must be understandable and extremely a great deal evident previous to creation whichever contract. Fact of the case: In this particular case Mr. A who thinks that he had concluded an agreement through Mr. B to buy a one third interest in D pvt. Limited from Mr. But at the same time Mr. B sold the same to Mr. C. On the other hand Mr. A notifies that he thinks an agreement among Mr. A and Mr. B to but the interest had previously been arrived at as the effect of two or three emails exchanged through Mr. B. In The first mail itself Mr. A sent Mr B a draft contract prepared through the lawyer on with no prejudice base. Second mail was sent by the Mr. B to Mr. A. In this mail it specify that the provisional contract accepted looked issue to explanation of a expression in the certificate namely the evaluation of the ingredient of an asset possessed by D Pty Limited and enquires Mr. A to elucidate that expressions. Next mail that is the third Mr. A reacts completely to Mr. B inquiries answering the request for data completely. But for this mail Mr. B did not react to this mail promptly. But Mr. B sells this interest to Mr. C. Soon after Mr. C approached t to Mr. A, but at the same time Mr. A reject the particular offer made by Mr. C. One of the main requirements of the lawful contract is that it must be properly communicated with offeror and offeree. If not it will not be considered as a lawful contract. And also the offer becomes valid only if they are bound by the two parties to the contract. In this particular case there is a revocation of offer by Mr. A. Coming to his intended contract by way of C, the deliberations of the Board Meeting has been very apparent that B’s share in D Private Limited is to be purchased by C, who, in revolve would offer the identical to A. And also C move towards Mr. A and offers to put into the sale the two 1/3 interests for a recommended cost. At that time Mr. A responds that he is previously enabled to the 1/3 of the share and war held by Mr. B. So that in the board meeting Mr. C react that Mr. A was requested but did not be present at the meeting In this case Mr. A was contends to accept the offer made by Mr C but Mr. C has rejected the particular offer made by Mr C. Sometimes offer may be unilateral or sometimes it may be bilateral contracts. In these two cases the party to contact must be properly bound to each other. An offer may be ended by revocation, refusal or lapse. An acceptance is, normally talking; a complete and incompetent assent to the entire the conditions that encompass an offer. Intentions must be obvious and very much apparent before making any contract. For a valid agreement to exist, the parties must make their intentions. And also it is much necessary to understand about the breach of contract between the parties to the contract. (a) Whether he can argue that an enforceable contract between Mr. A and Mr. B has arisen through the mail correspondence. Contract law includes any rules or policy directed in the direction of implementing certain guarantees. In Australia contract rule is mainly synchronized by the common rule, but progressively more acts are complementing the universal law of contract - mainly with regard to customer protection. Here in this case offeror and offeree that at first time Mr. A and Mr. B are not properly communicated. But in this case Mr. B is not properly communicated with Mr. A for the last mail send by the Mr. A. “Agreement of a contract falls to two parts, the first part being the offer and the second entails the acceptance of the offer (Part 5 of Contracts 101 will dig further into the offer part of the agreement). In practice the law spends an awful lot of time pulling apart the essence of the offer and acceptance to ascertain exactly what the contract entails. This is an area where significant litigation results because at the time of the initial contract there were two different worldviews of what they were contracting.” (Clark 2010). Negotiations may be the combination of either the synchronous or asynchronous contact and occupy a wide variety of means of delivery for example converses through the fact to face interaction, telephone, straight mail or through the email. And also Consensus Ad item that the meet of mind of the parties to the contract through the email correspondences also is very much necessary to become the valid contract between the parties to the contract. The contract becomes valid only if it fulfills entire legal requirement. The agreement become void if they are not properly communicated with each other. In this particular case for the third mail send by Mr. A and for this mail there is communication or response made by the Mr. B. In the case contract between Mr. A and Mr. C there is a rejection of offer on the part of Mr. A. Besides, in a contractual obligation of this genre, it is necessary that each party must understand the contractual obligations as professed by the other. There has been no consensus in the apparent contract between A and B since they had not agreed to contract and no contract was forthcoming from the conduct of both parties. Mere discussions or negotiations cannot be viewed as a valid contract by any stretch of imagination. Moreover, it is seen that at a latter stage, A invokes his rights by way of a contract, which was null and void, in the first place, due to lack of contractual consent among the parties. In the first instance, it was A who rejects B’s offer, and finally, C rejects A’s counter offer. There is no eventual contract between A and B due to rejection by C. However, if there were no eventual rejection by C, then A may have a binding contract with C. (b) What are key issues are in relation to the contracts. Various issues related to this particular case are given below, Whether the agreement between Mr. A and Mr. B is valid? Whether the agreement between Mr. B and Mr. C is valid? Whether Mr. A can file a complaint against Mr. B? Whether Mr. C can file a complaint against Mr. B? Whether Mr. A can entitled the title of goods? (c) Whether A can argue that he has an enforceable contract with Mr. C: The nature of transaction between A and B is that of an invitation to make an offer and not an offer per se. Both A and B had not reached a consensus regarding the terms of the ensuing contract between them and as such, there is no definite contract between them. An invitation to make an offer and non agreement on a definite contract is present here and besides, the parties A and B have not shown intention to enter into contract. Thus, A does not have an enforceable contract against B. Coming to his intended contract with C, the deliberations of the Board Meeting has been very clear that B’s share in D Private Limited is to be purchased by C, who, in turn would offer the same to A. However, this offer was not communicated to the intended purchaser, A, and besides, neither had A communicated his desire to accept this contract at that time. In the case of “Power v. Lee (1908) 99 Lt 284” a similar circumstance arouses. (Australian commercial law: Offer and Acceptance, n.d, p.52) P applied for the position of Headmaster of a school. The school board passed a resolution appointing him. The resolution was not communicated to P officially and it was left to one of the Board members to inform him o fit. Later on, it was seen that P’s offer had not been accepted as the resolution was never communication to him. This in the absence of a valid contract between A and C, the former does not have any rights over the latter in contractual terms. A could have had an enforceable contract against C if he had accepted C’s offer and communicated the same to him within reasonable time. This did not occur and thus there is no valid contract between the parties. (d) What is the relevance of the Board Meeting that A failed to attend? The Board Meeting which A failed to attend was very important. It was during the course of deliberations at this Board Meeting that it was resolved that B should sell his interests in D Private Limited to C , who was in turn authorised by the board to sell both the interests to A. If A had attended this meeting he could have communicated his agreement to buy the shares from C, or even object to the transfer of the shares from B to C. Since he did not attend this important Board Meeting, neither were B and C able to communicate their offer to A, nor could A decided whether to accept or decline this offer. Coming to the aspect of promises to perform an existing contract, in this case C’s perceived duty to offer the contract to A, the case of “Hartley v. Ponsonby (1857) KB” is a relevant case. (Essential contract law: Consideration, n.d, p.22.). In this case, the defendant captain (Ponsonby) promised the plaintiff Hartley that he would pay additional payment if he helped sail the ship back to its home port. The Court held that the plaintiff had done more than he was supposed to do and this provided the needed consideration for enforcement of a valid contract. However, in this case, it is seen that the Board’s decision to offer both the share holdings to A at the Board Meeting was neither communicated to the latter, nor was A in a position to communicate whether he had accepted or rejected the offer. However, through his conduct, it is seen that A was willing to accept the shares for which he had negotiated with B. (e) What action should A take? A however, cannot file a complaint against B since there is no contractual obligations on the part of B to A. As per the board resolution, he was supposed to allot the shares to C, who, in turn would pro-offer the same to A. However, A does have a valid reason for making a complaint against C, who was supposed to allot the two shareholdings to A, but did not do so. A’s deal with B did not consummate since the parties only made offers and counteroffers and were not really interested in entering contractual obligations and therefore there was no contract between A and B. Again A is at fault for arguing that he has already had a valid reason for seeking 1/s share that passed on from B to him under the email agreement. However, this agreement is invalid since it does not satisfy the salient element of the agreement of the parties to enter into contract. Under Acceptance laws, it may transpire that persons may act in manner, not cognisant of the presence of an offer which needs to be accepted. In such cases, where a person does act outside the faith of a pro-offer, it is deemed that acceptance is not valid and contract is not enforceable. This had been validated in the case of R .v. Clarke (1927) 40CLR 227 in the case wherein the Courts were satisfied that the party “did not act in reliance upon the offer, there was no acceptance of the offer, and therefore no contract between the parties.” (Australian commercial law: Offer and Acceptance, n.d, p.50) In this case, however, C claims that the contract is invalid when A puts forth his claim for both shares may not be acceptable under law. In all probability, A must seek redressal from C for one share of 1/3 ownership in D Private Limited which he could have gained had B accepted his final offer. A could thus try to enforce one share of 1/3 possession in D Private Limited from C only. Reference List Australian commercial law: Offer and Acceptance, n.d, p.52. [Provided by customer]. Clark, S., 2010. Contracts 101 part 4: Agreement. [Online] Steven Clark.Com.au. Available at: http://stevenclark.com.au/2009/11/10/contracts-101-part-4-the-agreement/ [Accessed 08 September 2010]. Essential contract law: Consideration, n.d, p.22. [Provided by customer]. Read More