logo

Assignment Title

   

Added on  2019-09-23

8 Pages2256 Words205 Views
 | 
 | 
 | 
Business Law AssignmentQuestion 1 Advise to Eatwell on whether Chickfresh’s or its own contract prevailsEatwell contacted Chickfresh in July 2015 and requested a quotation from them for the supply ofchicken. The quotation sent by Chickfresh was duly accepted by the Eatwell. So, they sent theirstandard form contract to Chickfresh for obtaining their acceptance. (It is assumed that thecontract contained all the relevant clauses and the clauses were in an understandable language).Chickfresh accepted the offer, but the company secretary of Chickfresh inserted an exclusionclause to the contract. The company Eatwell was not aware of this clause, and they sent a copy oftheir standard terms back to Chickfresh.As per the contract law, ‘acceptance of offer’ means that the party to whom the offer is made hasexpressed his assent to the terms of the offer. The acceptance is said to be valid when it is madein the manner requested by the offeror, there is an intention of acceptance by the offeree, it isunequivocal and unconditional, and it is manifested as per the terms of the offer (Elliott&Quinn, 2007). The contract is already formed by a party, and it is sent to the other party foracceptance. So, any addition, deletion, correction or change in the provision of contract can bedone only by amendment. The amendment can happen only when both the parties initial it. Itcannot be one-sided and cannot happen without the consent or approval of the offeror. Even ifthere is a typo in the contract and the offeree identifies it, he is not authorized to change it on hisown; he needs to inform it to the offeror, and the error is removed with the initials of both parties(Elliott& Quinn, 2007). 1
Assignment Title_1

In the present case, the acceptance by Chickfresh was not unconditional and unequivocal. Byadding the clause that "Chickfresh accepts no liability for any of the products supplied" is acondition on the existing terms of the contract that were sent by Eatwell. It is assumed thatEatwell had put a clause in the contract that Chickfresh will be liable for any of the productssupplied. But, Chickfresh refused to accept this clause in the contract which made the acceptanceconditional and equivocal. Thus, the acceptance by Chickfresh stands invalid. Also, theexclusion clause that has been added by Chickfresh is considered as a revocation of conditionalacceptance. This means that the offeree accepts the offer made by the offeror but with his ownconditions put in it (Adams, 2014). The revocation of conditional acceptance is effective uponreceipt. In Life Insurance Co v Phillips, the company made an offer to Phillips for buying the insurancecover in case of theft, accident, and fire of its supplies in transit. The offer that was made by thecompany was valid and contained all the relevant clauses. The offer also mentioned that theacceptance has to be made via letter and the company Phillips will have to send the premiumamount to the company. Phillips accepted the offer and sent the letter of acceptance along withthe money. But when the acceptance was read, it was found that Phillips added the clause thatthe company will protect its goods in transit from theft, accident, fire or "any other physicaldamage." The company rejected this acceptance and returned the money. Phillips sued them forbreach of contract. It was held that since the acceptance was “conditional and equivocal” so itstands invalid and when the acceptance is invalid, no contract has been formed between the twoparties. So, the insurance company is not liable for paying any damages to Phillips (McKendrick,2014). 2
Assignment Title_2

From the above discussion and the analysis of the case law, it can be concluded that the contractof Eatwell prevails and not of Chickfresh because the acceptance of Chickfresh was conditionaland equivocal which makes the acceptance invalid. If they wanted to add any clause, they wouldhave taken the approval of Eatwell, and both the parties must have signed it. Also, they did notinform Eatwell about the amendment that they made to their offer which is again illegal andinvalid. So, the contract of Eatwell prevails, and the contract made by Chickfresh is not valid.3
Assignment Title_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Business Law
|9
|2498
|258

Business Law
|9
|2394
|34

Corporation Law
|10
|2410
|179

Assignment Business Law Rule Agreement
|12
|3630
|18

Issue about Contract Law 2022
|13
|3520
|22

Business and Corporations Law Research Assignment
|14
|2895
|406