Business Law 7 Module: Analysis of Aztral-Tech Contractual Disputes

This report analyzes a business law scenario involving Aztral-Tech, a company seeking bids for construction projects and materials. The assignment examines whether binding contracts were formed with Cooley Construction, Bram Construction, and Devo-Supply. The report applies key legal principles from cases like RTS Flexible Systems v Molkerei Alois Müller, Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC, and Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd to determine the validity of offers, acceptance, and consideration. It concludes that Bram Construction likely formed a binding contract, while Cooley Construction did not, and that a contract exists between Aztral-Tech and Devo-Supply based on the seller's terms. The report also addresses the importance of intention to create legal relations and the implications of late submissions and invitations to tender.

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

1BUSINESS LAW
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.

2BUSINESS LAW
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.

3BUSINESS LAW
that when any individual wishes to implement any particular agreement, then it shall be the
obligation of that individual to demonstrate that he or she has a certain thing that has a value as
per the law, in order to do the bargain.
The case of Edwards v Skyways [1969] 1 WLR 3498 shall be regarded as a relevant case
in the given scenario. In this case, a promise had been made by an employer to the employee in
relation to a bonus compensation or payment that was labelled as ‘ex gratia’. Such promise was
regarded as binding in the legal sense. The employee relied upon that specific promise and
accepted a redundancy package. The employer was unable to prove that there was no intention in
connection to the promise made by them in order to give effect to a contractual term.
The case of Goel & Anor v Grant & Anor (As Joint Administrators of Meem SL Ltd)
[2017] EWHC 26889 is a relevant case in relation to the provided scenario. In this case, after
considering the content and data as mentioned in the emails, it was concluded by the High Court
that no contract was established. It was stated that the contracts in the nations of Wales and
England mandate the specific essentials to be binding in the legal sense. Firstly, there should be
an intention of the involved parties to establish legal relations. Secondly, an offer must be made
by one party and that offer should be unambiguously accepted by any other party. Thirdly, a
promise must be made by both the involved parties to each other regarding the provision of any
particular thing having a worth or value. In this case, it was found by the Court that no offer that
may be proficient of acceptance, was made, and hence, no contract that may be binding in the
legal sense, was established.
8 Edwards v Skyways [1969] 1 WLR 349.
9 Goel & Anor v Grant & Anor (As Joint Administrators of Meem SL Ltd) [2017] EWHC 2688.

4BUSINESS LAW
Application
The company named Aztral-Tech invited and summoned tenders from five separate
construction organizations. The deadline for bidding was the 27th day of August. Bram
Construction made a bid on 26th day of the month of August. Cooley Construction made a bid
after the deadline. Aztral-Tech purchased materials from Devo-Supply. After a series of email
conversations, Aztral-Tech purchased the materials as per the standard terms of the seller. From
the month of July to the month of December, Aztral-Tech accepted several deliveries from Devo.
The case of RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH [2010] UKSC
1410 shall be applied in the given scenario. It may be said that in the given scenario an agreement
shall exist between Aztral-Tech and Devo because a specific offer has been made and that
specific offer is retorted by an unambiguous and a clear acceptance.
Applying Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC [1990] EWCA Civ 1311 in the
given scenario, it may be said that after the invitation of tenders by Aztral, it shall have the
responsibility to deliberate the submissions when the submissions are delivered prior to the
deadline. Applying Barry v Davies [2000] EWCA Civ 23512, it may be said that Aztral should
sell to the highest bidder who shall be genuine.
The case of Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 8713 shall be applied in the
given scenario. In this case, it was stated that when any specific contract is established, a good
consideration is a requirement. Therefore, it may be said that in the given scenario, there is the
existence of a good consideration. Applying Currie v Misa [1875] LR 10 Ex 15314, it may be said
10 RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH [2010] UKSC 14.
11 Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC [1990] EWCA Civ 13.
12 Barry v Davies [2000] EWCA Civ 235.
13 Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 87.
14 Currie v Misa [1875] LR 10 Ex 153.

5BUSINESS LAW
that it shall be the obligation of each party to demonstrate that there is a certain thing having
value as per the law, which may be used by them in order to do the bargain.
Applying Edwards v Skyways [1969] 1 WLR 34915 in the given scenario, it may be said
that an intention to establish legal relations exist in connection to all the parties in the given
scenario. Cooley Construction and Bram Construction retorted to the invitation for tender by
Aztral with the purpose of establishing a legal relation. The agreement between Aztral and Devo
consist of an intention to establish lawful relation exists on the part of both the involved parties,
that is, Aztral and Devo.
The case of Goel & Anor v Grant & Anor (As Joint Administrators of Meem SL Ltd)
[2017] EWHC 268816 shall be applied in the provided scenario. It may be said that in the given
scenario, all the agreements fulfill the essentials in order to be binding in the legal sense. Firstly,
there exists an intention of the involved parties to establish legal relations. Secondly, an offer has
been made by one party and that offer has been unambiguously accepted by the other party.
Thirdly, a promise has been made by both the involved parties to each other regarding the
provision of any particular thing having a worth or value.
Conclusion
To conclude, it may be said that:-
 Cooley Construction shall not be able to claim that a binding contract has been
established with Aztral-Tech, however, Bram Construction shall be able to claim that a
binding contract has been established with Aztral-Tech. The bid made by Cooley
Construction may be ignored by Aztral-Tech.
15 Edwards v Skyways [1969] 1 WLR 349.
16 Goel & Anor v Grant & Anor (As Joint Administrators of Meem SL Ltd) [2017] EWHC 2688.

6BUSINESS LAW
 A contract has been established between Devo-Supply and Aztral-Tech, and such
contract is administered by the conditions and terms of seller.

7BUSINESS LAW
Bibliography
Barry v Davies [2000] EWCA Civ 235.
Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC [1990] EWCA Civ 13.
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 87.
Currie v Misa [1875] LR 10 Ex 153.
Edwards v Skyways [1969] 1 WLR 349.
Goel & Anor v Grant & Anor (As Joint Administrators of Meem SL Ltd) [2017] EWHC 2688.
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204.
Pharmaceutical Society v Boots Cash Chemists [1953] EWCA Civ 6.
RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH [2010] UKSC 14.