Case Study: Option Wireless Ltd vs. Open Peak Inc. - Business Law

This case study discusses the legal issues and court opinions regarding the case of Option Wireless Ltd vs. Open Peak Inc. in Florida Southern Court. It emphasizes the importance of a valid contract and fulfilling its terms to avoid disputes and claim damages.

BUSINESS LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................3
Summary of the facts of the case.................................................................................................3
Number of parties and their position...........................................................................................3
Procedural History of the case.....................................................................................................3
Legal issue of the case.................................................................................................................3
Facts court found relevant while making its decision.................................................................4
Response......................................................................................................................................4
Reasoning....................................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION
The case law is studied regarding the process and procedure of the case Option Wireless
Ltd vs. Open peak, Inc., Florida Southern Court. The case study will summarize the facts, legal
issues considered by the court of law and courts opinions regarding the case.
MAIN BODY
Summary of the facts of the case
First, the discussion about the facts of the case study states that that counter defendant of
the case Open peak Inc. entered into a contract with the counter Plaintiff Option Wireless Ltd.
Under the contract it was the responsibility of the defendant to sell 12,300 units of specific
module worth $848,700. It was decided between the parties to sell the order in two shipments
and the vendor sent a part of the order and it was decided to sell the other part later on. After the
final shipment, plaintiff discovered defects in the goods and considered as breach of contract on
the part of the seller (Finnie et.al, 2019). The defendant rejected the claim stating that the order
purchased do not fall under the definition of controlling contract and hence the plaintiff is not
entitled to seek damages from the defendant.
Number of parties and their position
 Open Peak Inc., The defendant and the seller of modules
 Option Wireless Ltd. The plaintiff and the purchaser of the module
Procedural History of the case
Florida Southern Federal Court agreed the request by the Option Wireless to dismiss the
claims made by the Open Peak Inc. relating to the consequential damages. It also states that
according to the Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) not applies for the claims for specific damages.
It also stated that applying the Limitation Liability clause, the party can recover the
consequential damages but the specific damages from the other party.
Legal issue of the case
The legal issue raised before the court was in order to constitute a valid contract, it should satisfy
the following aspects such that is there should be a valid contract, material breach should be
done by one of the parties and claim for the damages because of non-performance or breach by
the party. Option Wireless Ltd opinion regarding this that valid contract between the parties
results in the claim for damages and hence the party is not liable for the damages.
4. The court rule on the legal issue of the case

The facts of the stated that there was no written contract between the parties and both the parties
was engaged in the basic commercial practice in which the buyer submitted the order and seller
filed the order and there was no formal agreement made between the parties. Hence, the terms of
contract were not fulfilled by the parties and no such written confirmation was made between the
parties and the parties has no rights to claim damages from the other party.
Facts court found relevant while making its decision
The Court after examining the facts of the case concluded that Firstly, there was no written
contract between the parties which constitute a valid contract and was just a basic
commercialized trading between the parties (Jobidon and et.al 2019). Secondly, a valid contract
contains some terms and stipulation which highlights the rights of the parties but there was no
such agreement. Thirdly, Open Peak is not entitled to claim for the damages as the goods were
rejected after three months that is after the lapse of time. Court also considered the claim for
consequential compensation as Open Peak Inc. faced damages due to other party by losing its
project which affected its company’s reputation and affected the relation with that company and
stated that these are adequate grounds to support Option Wireless motion to dismiss.
Response
There was situation when the Open Peak Inc. found out that the goods were defective that is the
buyer found out the fault in goods on 14 January and returned the goods after 3 months. The
buyer should have informed or the terms should mention the conditions regarding the acceptance
so that it should be clear between the parties. The parties should have entered the written
agreement specifying the terms of acceptance and the limitation period relating to the contract.
To form a valid contract, the parties should enter into the written agreement in which the
agreement should define the terms of acceptance and offer and all the other conditions to form a
valid contract (Bag, 2018). It should also include the limitation period and conditions for the
non-performance by any parties to the contract. The contract made between the parties bind the
parties as they are under the obligation to perform and fulfil the conditions and also aware about
the consequences if any of the parties breach any terms of the contract.
The parties made a mistake by not entering into the valid agreement in order to claim the
damages suffered by the act of the other party.

Reasoning
The court did not give decision in either party and interpreted that there was no valid
agreement between the parties. Open Peak Inc. is not entitled for the damages because the party
rejected the goods after 3 months which is a long period as the other party assumed that the
goods are accepted by the buyer and there was no communication regarding the goods (Castro,
2017). The invoice sent by the seller specified the time period in which the buyer can make
reasonable changes regarding the transaction between the parties and the goods were rejected by
the party after three months which is assumed that by the seller that the buyer has accepted the
goods.
CONCLUSION
From the above case study, is concluded that to constitute a valid contract there should be
a written agreement between the parties and all the terms of a valid contract should be fulfilled to
avoid any dispute among the parties. Presence of the contract help the suffered party to claim
damages from the party who has breached the contract. Both the parties should comply with the
terms of the contract which gives the party to enforce their rights and claim for damages.

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Bag, S., 2018. Economic Analysis of Contract Law: Incomplete Contracts and Asymmetric
Information. Springer.
Castro, M.F.D., 2017. Monetary impacts and currency wars: a blind spot in the discourse about
Transnational Legal Orders. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 60.
Finnie, et.al, 2019. Design development post contract signing in New Zealand: client’s or
contractor’s cost?. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Management,
Procurement and Law. 172(4). pp.146-156.
Jobidon,et.al 2019. Comparison of Quebec’s project delivery methods: relational contract law
and differences in contractual language. Laws. 8(2). p.9.
1