Assignment On Business Law -1

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

BUSINESS LAW1
Issue
The issues in the given scenario are as follows:-
 Whether Cooley Construction and Bram Construction will be able to claim that a binding
contract has been established with Aztral-Tech through their bids, and whether the bids
may be ignored by Aztral-Tech.
 Whether a contract has been established between Devo-Supply and Aztral-Tech, and
whether such contract is administered by the conditions and terms of buyer or seller.
Rule
The case of RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH [2010] UKSC
141 must be regarded as an important case in this regard. As per the findings of this particular
case, it may be said that the official and prescribed method of the courts of England is that any
particular agreement shall exist when a specific offer is made and that specific offer is retorted
by an unambiguous and a clear acceptance regarding the terms provided in the offer. The issue
relating to the fact that whether any offer has been forwarded, and whether that offer has been
clearly accepted, is determined by the courts and judges by referring to the question that what
any particular reasonable and rational individual would have projected and done.
The case of Pharmaceutical Society v Boots Cash Chemists [1953] EWCA Civ 62 shall
be considered to be a significant case in this regard. In this case, it was stated that offers should
be differentiated from the ‘invitation to treat’. In this particular case, it was held by the court that
the exhibition and demonstration of any particular commodity or product in a shop, which has a
price attached to it, shall not be regarded as an offer, instead, it should be considered to be
1 RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH [2010] UKSC 14.
2 Pharmaceutical Society v Boots Cash Chemists [1953] EWCA Civ 6.

BUSINESS LAW2
an ‘invitation to treat’. In the case of Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 12043, it was
established that in the contract law of England, generally advertisements should be regarded
as ‘invitations to treat’.
The case of Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC [1990] EWCA Civ 134 shall
be considered to be a relevant case in connection to the given scenario. In this specific case, it
was stated that any individual who may invite tenders, shall have the responsibility to deliberate
the submissions if the submissions are delivered prior to the deadline, so that the bidder, even in
the absence of a contract, would be able to file a suit for damages if the bid that is submitted by
him is never deliberated or considered. In the case of Barry v Davies [2000] EWCA Civ 2355, it
was confirmed and established that the auction goods and commodities that are being sold and
traded without any kind of reserve should be sold in respect of the highest bidder who shall be
genuine. The principle forwarded in this case shall be subject to the exceptions and exemptions
that are grounded on illegality, for instance illicit commodities, or any seller who does not have
the right or privilege to sell commodities, or any purchaser who does not have the right or money
to purchase commodities.
The case of Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 876 must be regarded as an
important case in relation to the given scenario. In this case, it was stated that when any specific
contract is established, a good consideration is a requirement. In this particular case, a gratuitous
promise was not regarded as a consideration as it was not binding. It was also stated in this case
that although, consideration should have adequate value as per the law, consideration need not
imitate any acceptable price. In the case of Currie v Misa [1875] LR 10 Ex 1537, it was stated
3 Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204.
4 Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC [1990] EWCA Civ 13.
5 Barry v Davies [2000] EWCA Civ 235.
6 Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 87.
7 Currie v Misa [1875] LR 10 Ex 153.