Business Law - Case study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Business Law - - Case Study ExampleAn crack in the context of contract law has been described as an expression of willingness to contract on veritable terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the soulfulness to whom it is addressed, the offeree.3The expression4 may take different forms and Hard water systems original quotation will satisfy this requirement. The intention broker is an objective consideration and the expression of Smith v Hughes 5emphasised the relevant consideration as being a focus on how a reasonable person would view the situation.Furthermore, the law distinguishes between an offer and an invitation to treat, which is not an offer but an indication of willingness to negotiate a contract6. For example, in the case of Gibson v Manchester City Council7, the run-in may be prepared to sell constituted an invitation to treat and not a distinct offer.Furthermore, reasonable acceptance in law follows a valid offer and the formation of a contract follows immediately. Moreover, a valid acceptance is a final and unqualified acceptance of an offer as demonstrated in the case of Peter Lind confine v Mersey Docks & Harbour Boar,8 highlighting the mirror image rule, where acceptance essential be unequivocal and unconditional, in that respectfore acceptance must mirror the offer.With regard to the current scenario, the issue in c... With regard to the current scenario, the issue in contention is whose terms are applicable to the contract. Contractual negotiations peculiarly in the context of quotations and bids for, will often involve several exchanges between the commercial parties involving offers and counter offers9. The case of Hyde v Wrench10 established that a counter offer brings an end to the original offer. However, the action of the form creates unfeigned problems in practice11. The difficulty with this as evidenced with the current situation is determining the exact terms of the eventual (prenominal) contract. Indeed Chitty on Contracts underlines this problem and concludesThus it is possible by careful draftsmanship to avoid losing the battle of the forms, but not.. to win it. The most that the draftsman can be certain of achieving is the stalemate situation where there is no contract at all12.Despite the possibility of conflict in the current situation as to the exact terms of the contract, there is clearly a contract between Doors Software and Hard Water by virtue of course of conduct13. However, to clarify the issue of whose terms are applicable, the courts have adopted the in conclusion shot principle, which was established in the case of Butler Machine Tool Co -v- Ex Cell-O-Corp14 . According to this principle, the presumption is that the last offer which has been accepted without qualification will be determined as covering the conditions of the contract. In the current scenario, Hard Water returned and acknowledgment slip incorporating the terms and conditi ons of Doors Software Limited and on a strict interpretation of the last shot principle, this would suggest that the contract was concluded on Doors Softwares terms