Business Law Assignment: Analysis of Contractual Agreements and Offers

This business law assignment analyzes two scenarios involving contractual agreements. The first case examines a tender process by Millennia University, evaluating the existence of contractual relationships with Greenland, Enviro, and Plant Forever. It delves into the concepts of offers, invitations to treat, and the postal rule of acceptance, concluding that a contract existed with Plant Forever due to a breach. The second case explores the legal effects of correspondence between James’s Shoes, Famous Footwear, and Footloose, focusing on offer, acceptance, and counter-offer principles. The analysis determines that a valid contract was formed between James’s Shoes and Footloose, after a series of communications, including advertisements, offers, and counteroffers. The assignment demonstrates an understanding of contract law principles, case precedents, and their application to practical business scenarios.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Business Law Assignment
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Table of Contents
Question 1........................................................................................................................................2
Facts of the case...............................................................................................................................2
Issue.................................................................................................................................................2
Law..................................................................................................................................................2
Application......................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................5
Question 2........................................................................................................................................5
Issue.................................................................................................................................................5
Law..................................................................................................................................................5
Application......................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................7
References........................................................................................................................................8

2BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Question 1
Facts of the case
The Millennia University called for tenders with closing date on 1 June and Greenland
delivered the tender on 29 May; Enviro has posted tender on 15 May and Plant has submitted
tender on 30 May.
Issue
Whether contractual relation existed between the university and Greenland, Enviro and Plant
forever
Law
A contract may be defined as an agreement that is enforceable by law. When two parties
enter into an agreement with the intention to perform the contractual obligations and be legally
bound by the agreement, such agreement is said to be a contract enforceable by law. The parties
to a contract are entitled to challenge each other in the event of a breach of the contractual
obligations. In order to enter into a contract, it is necessary for one party to make an offer to the
other party and the other party must communicate acceptance of such offer as was observed in
Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1954].
An offer may be made to a particular person or to a group of persons. An offer differs
from an invitation to treat in that an offer is a proposal whereas an invitation to offer (treat)
implies inviting someone to make proposal. An offer is made with the intention to enter into a
contract with the offeree, thus it implies certainty. On the other hand, an invitation to offer is an

3BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
offer that is made with the objective of negotiating or inducing the contractual terms as was
defined in Carlill v Carbollic Smoke Ball Co [1893].
In the given scenario, as per AGC (Advance) Ltd v McWhirter [1977] tenders cannot be
considered as an offer in the event they are not complete and shall be considered as an invitation
to treat. A tender shall be considered as an offer only if it includes specific terms like mode of
delivery, completion date, price and other contractual terms that are relevant to the agreement
(McKendrick 2014). It is not mandatory on the part of the offeree to accept a tender offer unless
the same has been specifically stated such as tender that offers the lowest price shall be accepted.
However, if the offeree rejects the offer once it cannot be accepted again as was stated in Byrne
v Van Tienhoven [1880].
In the postal rule of acceptance, it was stated in Adam v Lindsay [1881] that as soon as
the letter is posted by the sender and sent through post, the offer is said to have been accepted the
moment when the letter is posted and is beyond control of the sender. However, such letter must
bear correct address of the addressee.
Application
In the given scenario, Greenland responded to the tender invitation on 29 March, which
was way before the last date on which the tender could be submitted to the University. Greenland
had offered second lowest price tender to the University but the tender was not accepted by the
University as there were rumors regarding the unreliability of the company in the market.
Moreover, it is not compulsory for a person to whom a tender offer is made to accept the offer;
hence, the university does not have any legal obligation towards Greenland. Furthermore, since
the university has once rejected the offer made by Greenland, it cannot accept the offer anymore.

4BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
The rejection implied University’s acceptance of the tender Offered by plant forever. The
university expressly communicated the rejection of tender to Greenland. There was no further
contact created between Greenland and the University.
Enviro- In the given scenario, Enviro shall offer the tender on 15 May by post and the offer
reached the university on 17 May. However, Enviro did not put the tender offer in the box. As
discussed above, the University only made an invitation to an offer and hence, the university was
not liable to accept the offer made by Enviro. Therefore, no contractual relation arose between
the University and Enviro as the offer was not available but it could be accepted as the offer was
discovered after the decision was made and the same had not been rejected by the university.
Plant forever- Plant posted the order on 30 May, which reached the University on 2 June, which
was past the stipulated time prescribed by the University for tender invitation. However, as per
the principles of the postal rule, the tender shall be considered effective on 30 May, which was
prior to the date specified by the University and hence, was considered valid. The University
posted the letter of acceptance of the tender but the letter did not reach plant forever. Further,
plant forever did not receive the letter as a post worker destroyed it. Nevertheless, the postal rule
states that as soon as the letter was posted, a contract was created between the Plant Forever and
the university. There was proper offer and acceptance between the parties to a contract, which is
essential to form a valid contract. Hence, the University of Millennia is entitled to claim
compensation from Plant forever as it committed its full stock in some other place.

5BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Conclusion
There was no contractual relation between the University in relation to Greenland and
Enviro but a contractual relation exist between Plant Forever and University where Plant has
committed a breach of the contract.
Question 2
Issue
Is there any legal effect of each correspondence between James’s shoes, Famous footwear and
Footloose?
Law
An offer cannot be considered to be legally binding unless it includes primary terms as
was held in Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002]. The primary terms of
a contract includes delivery date, price of the goods, payment mode details, date of payment,
description of the goods, etc which must be present in an offer to be enforceable by law.
The courts usually determine whether a valid offer has been made between the parties to
the contract by applying the objective test. The court applies the test to determine whether any
reasonable person shall view the contract as a valid contract as was observed in Smith v Huges
[1871]. An offer becomes an invitation to offer if it is not complete and does not bind the parties
to the contract legally (Andrews 2015). In case of an acceptance of an offer, it must be made
according to the terms of the offer and there must not be any acceptance in respect of alternative
terms. Acceptance for alternative terms shall invalidate the original offer and shall be considered
as counter offer that does not have legal effect. When a counter offer is made, it invalidates the

6BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
original offer. As per the decision in Hyde v Wrench [1840], a contract is valid only when all the
essential ingredients of the contract is fulfilled.
Application
Footloose gave an advertisement in a daily newspaper on 1 October and an offer is
regarded as an invitation to offer if it is not complete. In the given case, the advertisement does
not mention clearly about the transfer as it merely stated the starting price of flies worth $2000
for hundred days and did not even specify styles and the rate of the different styles. Further, there
was no clear mention about the quantity of goods and the delivery, thus, it constituted an
invitation to treat.
Famous footwear sent a letter on 2 October accepting the offer made in the advertisement
and wish to buy 500 pairs at 2000 per 100 pairs, further stating the delivery date shall be
followed. The acceptance as not valid as the advertisement was an invitation to treat and it did
not mention anything about delivery date or mode of payment.
James shoes sent an offer on 4 October, in response to the invitation to offer made by
Footloose stating they would like to purchase 2000 pair of sling bag sandals at 30000 including
GST and delivery. The offer made was considered as valid offer as any prudent person shall be
induced to enter into the contract.
Footloose made an offer on 6 October to James shoes stating that they want to send back
the 2000 pair of sandals at 30000 excluding GST price. Footloose stated the payment mode to be
cheque or cash but the offer was considered as counteroffer as it was not accepted on the terms
of the original offer made on 4 October, which included GST. On 8 October James sent a letter

7BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
to Footloose regarding the counter offer made on 6 October stating gents footwear are ready to
accept the terms of the offer but the delivery date is required to be decided for proper acceptance.
The contract was created on 10 October where Ms Simeone discussed that sandal
delivery shall be collected by James on 1 November from famous Footloose Sydney warehouse.
This would amount to a valid contract as it includes all essentials of a valid contract.
Conclusion
A valid contract was formed on 10 October between James’s shoes and Footloose. The
communication between three companies from 1 to 8 October, constituted invitation to treat,
offer and counter offers.

8BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
References
Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1954] 92 CLR 424.
Carlill v Carbollic Smoke Ball Co [1893].
AGC (Advance) Ltd v McWhirter [1977] 1 BLR 9454
Byrne v Van Tienhoven [1880] LR 5 CPD 344.
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA 8.
Smith v Huges [1871] LR 6 QB 597
McKendrick, E., 2014. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).
Andrews, N., 2015. Contract law. Cambridge University Press.
Hyde v Wrench [1840] Beav 334