Legal Aspect Of Supply Chain Management

Running head: LEGAL ASPECT OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
0
LEGAL ASPECT OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author’s note:

1LEGAL ASPECT OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
Question 1
Issue
Issues involved in this scenario, whether there is a binding contract between Aztral-Tech
and Bram Construction, and Cooley Construction or not. Issues also involved in this scenario
whether Aztral-Tech can ignore of considering its bids.
Rule
In this given scenario, the rules for an invitation to treat an offer or the perspective of
the Latin term “invitatio ad offerendum” will apply here to consider regarding the boundness of
the contract between Aztral-Tech Company and Bram Construction, as well as Cooley
Construction Company. The term invitation to make or treat an offer is an impression within the
principles of Contract law in the UK.1 A contract will be legally enforceable if there is an offer on
the part of the offeror and that proposal is voluntarily acknowledged by the offeree. The phrase
‘invitation to treat an offer’ means an individual or a company is inviting another person or a
group of persons to make an offer to buy such things. In such case, Partridge vs. Crittenden
1968 a mere advertisement is not an offer to the viewers who are watching this.2 However, in
Carlill vs. Carbolic Small Ball Co 1893, an advertisement of a thing can be regarded as an
offer if the purchaser maintains all the requirements as mentioned in that advertisement.3 It will
be considered as a general offer and unilateral contract. In case law Pharmaceutical Society
1 Korolev, Sergei Viktorovich, et al. "'Wrong Price Tag'at a Supermarket in the Focus of General
Principles of Law." (2018) Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics 9.3 (33) :1004-
1010.
2 Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204
3 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1

2LEGAL ASPECT OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
of Great Britain vs Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd. 1953, it has decided that exhibition
of commodities is an invitation to make an offer and it is not an offer of the part of the person
who has invited that.4 The case Ramsgate Victoria Hotel vs Montefiore 1866 has described
that any performance of the contract or any acceptance should be done within the stipulated
time or reasonable time.5 In case Spencer vs Harding 1870 the court has acknowledged that in
a tender process, the defendant is not bound to sell the property to the higher bidder as it is a
simple invitation to make an offer.6 The persons to whom the bidders are presented, they should
make an offer to the bidder, and it is at the will of the bidder that they can accept, as well as
reject it. However, in Harvela Investments vs Royal Trust of Canada 1986 the court of law
held that if the defendant has made an unblemished intention to accept such highest tender,
then the invitation to make an offer will be considered as an offer.7
Application
In the given scenario, Aztral-Tech Ltd company has invited tender to renovate its some
parts and stated that if the companies are interested to take the tenders then they should email
to it on or before a specific date. Bram Construction Ltd Company has sent an email to Aztral
Tech Company one day before such particular date. Another company named Cooley
Construction Ltd has made a bid after such particular date, which has announced as the
deadline to make bid by Aztral Tech Company. The above-mentioned rules will apply here to
4 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] EWCA
Civ 6
5 Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) LR 1 Ex 109
6 Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561
7 Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] AC 207

3LEGAL ASPECT OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
make the decision whether there is a contractual relationship between those companies with
Aztral Tech or not.
Applying a specific regulation of the contract law in this scenario, that Aztral Tech Ltd
company has made an invitation to treat an offer to both of those companies who have sent the
emails. Therefore, it can be stated that there is no offer on the part of Aztral Tech rather than an
invitation to make an offer as both the companies have made an offer, and not this company.
Applying the case Partridge vs. Crittenden 19688 in this scenario, that a mere invitation
is not an offer, which acceptance can not bind a contract lawfully enforceable. Therefore, there
is no contract held between Aztral-Tech and Bram Construction.
In the application of the case Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs Boots Cash
Chemists (Southern) Ltd. 19539 in this situation, it can be decided that an acceptance of an
invitation to an offer will not be regarded as a binding contract. Therefore, there is no promised
of a contract between Bram Construction and Aztral-Tech.
Applying the judgment of the case Ramsgate Victoria Hotel vs Montefiore 186610 in
this scenario that Cooley Construction Ltd should make the offer to take such tender within the
prescribed or stipulated time. In this invitation to treat an offer, the parties should make the offer
within such time. Therefore, there is no question of the contractual relation between Aztral Ltd
Company and Cooley Construction Ltd.
8 Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204
9 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] EWCA
Civ 6
10 Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) LR 1 Ex 109

4LEGAL ASPECT OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
Applying the case Spencer vs Harding 1870,11 in this tender related case that Aztral
Tech is not bound to take any higher bid in any tender process. Therefore, there is no
acceptance on the part of Aztral Tech, as well as no contract has occurred between them.
Conclusion
Therefore, there is no contractual relationship between Aztral-Tech and Bram
Construction, as well as with Cooley Construction. It also should be revealed that Aztral Ltd is
able to ignore those bids, which have made by Bram Construction or Cooley Construction.
Question 2
Issue
The issues involved in this scenario, whether firstly, there is a legally enforceable
contract between Aztral-Tech and Devo-Supply Ltd Company; secondly, the relationship
between these two companies are governed by the standard terms of the seller, as well as a
buyer.
Rules
In the given situation in the question, the formation of a legal contract will apply here to
show whether there is a legally enforceable agreement or not. To make a contract legally
bound, the following points should be satisfied. The case law Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd
vs The Commonwealth 1954 will apply here, as there should be an offer of something from
one party to make an agreement.12 The offer might be accepted or rejected by the offeree. If the
offeree has accepted the offer, then the acceptance must be communicated to the offeree. In
the case of Felthouse vs Bindley 1862, it has described that for making a contract the
11 Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561
12 Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1954] HCA 20, (1954) 92 CLR 424

5LEGAL ASPECT OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
acceptance of that offer should be communicated to the offeree or any of his official manager.13
It has also decided in the case of Powell vs Lee 1908.14 For making an agreement bound, there
should be an intention from both the parties to make a contract. In the case of Rose & Frank
Co vs JR Crompton & Bros Ltd. 1924, it is said that the intent of the parties is one of the
essential parts of a contract.15 Another essential part of a contract is a consideration, which has
described in the case of Currie vs Misa 187516. The term consideration in a contract means
giving something to one party in return for something, which has made a contract legitimately
enforceable. This case of Chappell & Co Ltd. Vs Nestle Co Ltd 1959 has suggested that the
consideration of a contract may not be adequate, which will apply in this scenario.17 In the
judgment of the case Crown Lands Comrs vs Page1960, it has pronounced that the parties to
the contract should be lawfully capable to make a contract such as any parties to the contract
should not be minor or unsound.18 The terms of the contract should be certain for making a
contract as described in the case of Hillas and Co Ltd. Vs Arcos Ltd 1932, will apply here.19
Application
13 Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35
14 Powell v Lee (1908) 99 LT 284
15 Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd [1924] UKHL 2
16 Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 893
17 Chappell & Co Ltd v. Nestle Co Ltd [1959] 2 All ER 701
18 Crown Lands Comrs v Page [1960] 2 QB 274
19 Hillas and Co. Ltd. v. Arcos Ltd. (1932) 147 LT 503

6LEGAL ASPECT OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
In the given scenario, Aztral Tech Ltd has made an invitation to treat an offer to Devo-
Supply Ltd. On the basis of such an invitation, Devo-Supply Ltd has made an offer to Aztral
Tech within the stipulated time and has mentioned regarding consideration.
Applying the principles of the case of Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd vs The
Commonwealth 195420 there is an offer from Devo-Supply to Aztral Tech on such basis of an
invitation of making that offer. Therefore, there is an offer in that scenario.
Applying the judgment of the case Felthouse vs Bindley 186221 in this situation, the
acceptance of such offer has communicated to Devo-Supply Ltd from Aztral Ltd. Therefore, one
condition of making a contract has satisfied in this stage.
Applying the case of Rose & Frank Co vs JR Crompton & Bros Ltd. 192422 here, it
can be stated that there is an intention of both parties to make a contract as they have
communicated with each other and the proposal has been accepted by other parties. Therefore,
there is an intention to make a contract.
In the application of the case Currie vs Misa 187523 in this scenario, there is a
consideration between both the parties. Aztral Tech will pay £55,000 to Devo-Supply as a
consideration in that contract and Devo-supply will refurbish the of that Aztral Tech company as
in return consideration. Therefore, there is a consideration from both the parties to each other in
this scenario.
20 Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1954] HCA 20, (1954) 92 CLR 424
21 Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35
22 Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd [1924] UKHL 2
23 Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 893

7LEGAL ASPECT OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
The case Crown Lands Comrs vs Page196024 will applicable in this scenario, because
both the parties are capable of making a contract, as both are juristic persons.
Conclusion
Therefore, there is a contractual relationship between Aztral Tech Ltd and Devo-Supply
Ltd. The contract has created when all the fundamentals of making any contract have satisfied
here. In this scenario, the contract has finally made when Aztral Tech Ltd has accepted the offer
of Devo-Sypply Ltd. The contract between both parties has been governed by the standard
principles of buyer’s or seller.
24 Crown Lands Comrs v Page [1960] 2 QB 274

8LEGAL ASPECT OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
Bibliography
Journal
Korolev, Sergei Viktorovich, et al. "'Wrong Price Tag'at a Supermarket in the Focus of General
Principles of Law." (2018) Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics 9.3 (33) :1004-
1010.
Cases
Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1954] HCA 20, (1954) 92 CLR 424
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1
Chappell & Co Ltd v. Nestle Co Ltd [1959] 2 All ER 701
Crown Lands Comrs v Page [1960] 2 QB 274
Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 893
Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35
Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] AC 207
Hillas and Co. Ltd. v. Arcos Ltd. (1932) 147 LT 503
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] EWCA 6
Powell v Lee (1908) 99 LT 284
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) LR 1 Ex 109
Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd [1924] UKHL 2
Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561