Business Law - the Nature of English Law

...

[9]It is also not enough for the Quick Clean to decide that he accepts the offer, he must also communicate his acceptance to the coffee shop, and in Brogden’s case you can see the similarity. It the parties are in each other’s presence, there is no problem unless their words must be heard because of a loud noise. It case, the words must be repeated. In Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation (1995, CA).

The coffee shop was been waited since the 1st February for reply from Quick Clean until on the 6th February and also coffee shops has been sent a fax to Quick Clean to replay but they did not heard nothing about it so, The coffee shop has been decided to withdrawn the offer.

The swift Cleaning Solutions Ltd who had also seen the advertisement in the newspaper to do the facilities management work for £16,000 per annum. The coffee shop telephoned to the swift cleaning solution on the 5th February and offered them the contract for 12 month at £15,000 per annum. In the meantime swift cleaning solution accepted the offer.

According to Principal’s contract liability’s the coffee shop should wait until Quick Clean replay by one or two more days than the coffee shop should offer and agreement with the swift cleaning solution.

B) Would my answer differ (disagree) if the fax sent by the coffee shop was received on Quick Cleans machine at 11.00am?

My answer won’t be a differ, my answer would be agree this is because normally shops are always open around 8.00am or 9.00am and the coffee shop sent fax to Quick Clean on 6th February at 9.30am and Quick Clean did receive the fax but it was not read by anyone until the 5.00pm on the same day right, however in a busy day the Quick Clean should bear in mind about the contract to the management facilities offer due on the 6th February, it does not matter the time that Quick Clean machine receive at 11.00am or 9.00am. [10]In the case of section (b) termination of offers would be applied as lapse of time because an offer will terminate after a reasonable lapse of time. What amounts to a seasonable period will depend on the circumstances, for example in the case of (Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) LR 1 Ex 109) case. A final problem in case where the postal rule applies concerns the withdrawal of his acceptance by the coffee shop.

Conclusion

The coffee shop plc was needed a management service in the northwest for 12 month and coffee shop has receive the offer from both company (A) is the Quick Clean Ltd and (B) is Swift cleaning solutions. However the coffee shop has receive two offers but he/she has to decide one contract because at the end, the coffee shop has to give one company contract and agreement. In meantime the coffee shop decided to give an contract and agreement to swift cleaning solution and decide to not give contract to quick clean because the coffee shop already withdrawn. In the law only one parties get agreement and Swift cleaning solution is lucky to get contract from the coffee shop.

Bibliography

Textbooks

Jones, L. and IVONNE, P. (2015) MISIONERO DURANTE LA DICTADURA (Spanish Edition). Third ed. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Inline Citations: (Jones and IVONNE, 2015, pp. 1 – 79)

Jones, L. (2011) Introduction to Business Law. Second edition. New York: Oxford

University Press, USA. Inline Citations: (Jones, 2011, pp. 1 – 79)

Richards, P. and Review, W. A. (2007) Law of Contract: UK Edition (Foundation Studies in Law). 8th edition. Harlow: Prentice Hall (UK).Inline Citations: (Richards and Review, 2007, pp. 16 – 30)

Journal Article

Carter, J. (1988) Journal of contract law - legal publications. Available at: http://www.lexisnexis.com.au/en-AU/products/journal-of-contract-law.page (Accessed: 28 October 2015).

Cases

Parker v Clarke (1960).

Offer and acceptance, Daniel Greenberg, (08 June 2015).

Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund v Rouvroy

Flack v Williams [1990] A. C. 176).

Adams v Lindsell [1818]. Court of King’s Bench, 106 E.R. 250; (1818) 1 B. &Ald. 681 [05 June 1818]. Westlaw UK

Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch. D. 463 [01 April 1876].

Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation (1995, CA).

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) LR 1 Ex 109).

Subject Databases for Law

Lexis Nexis

Westlaw

---------------------------------------------------------------