BUSM1474 Assignment 1: Analyzing Supply Contract Disputes

This report analyzes a case involving a supply contract dispute between Melbourne Builders and Sydney Paintworks. The core issue revolves around the redecoration of a new office premise and the terms of the contract, including deadlines, payment, and potential breaches. The analysis examines the offer, acceptance, and key terms and conditions of the contract, highlighting conflicting stipulations regarding the completion timeframe and the consequences of delays. The report explores the nature of the dispute, the potential outcomes, and the legal arguments of each party, considering the significance of written agreements and the enforceability of specific clauses. The analysis considers the impact of the delay caused by the Sydney Paintworks and the Melbourne Builders' decision to terminate the contract due to the missed deadline. Ultimately, the report concludes that Sydney Paintworks is likely to win the case based on the existing terms and conditions.

MANAGING SUPPLY CONTRACTS
BUSM1474
ASSIGNMENT – 1
NAME: SUNDARAM VEERAPPAN
STUDENT NUMBER: (S3612346)

Introduction
In every legally binding contract, there must be five essential aspects to make one complete.
These aspects include an offer, acceptance, capacity, consideration, and intention to carry out
a contract successfully. The case presents a call for quotation on redecoration of a new office
premise acquired by Melbourne Builders to Sydney Paintworks Ltd. In the quote, the firm
requires the work to be completed by 1st March according to the letter dated 4th January
wherein a terms and condition ‘essence of time is important if not followed the firm has all
the rights to terminate a contract not undertaken within the set time’.
In response a quote is submitted by the paint workers on 6th January and a revised one on 13th
January of $7000 and $7800 respectively. Each of the quote bore a term and condition on an
allowance of up to 10 working days which does not amount to breach of contract agreeing on
a 50 percent pay upfront and the rest on completion. An acceptation of offer on 6th January by
the Melbourne builders accepting terms stipulated by the paint company. A $3900 payment
requested by the paint firm was sent on 5th February hence beginning the works. (Fried 2015)
notes that such unclear aspects lead to challenges and possible delays at the time of
implementation of contracts. No formal agreement is received from the other side on
acceptance of the offer, but the contract sets off thus leaving room for a tussle once the time
of completion delays.
Elements of the Contract
The contract entails elements of offer and acceptance as well as the terms and conditions of
each party working together. The contract entailed an offer, acceptance, written document on
one side and discharge by performance. The contract involves an invitation to contract and a
counter offer on the price for the work stipulated. However, in its last stage, there was no
written agreement between the two companies sending of request for deposit and progression
of task took place.
The Key Terms and Conditions of the Contract
The contract involves terms and conditions on the side of the team seeking for service and the
team offering the said service. One side states that time is of essence and any task not
completed within the specified time gives the firm offering the work the right to terminate a
contract. On the other side, the Paint Works firm has a terms and condition stating While
every effort will be made to carry out work within agreed timescales, a delay in completion

of up to 10 working days is not to be regarded as a breach of contract.’ The main contestation
in the case arises in the difference on the two which were not solved before the actual
implementation of the task began.
Nature and Point of Dispute
The point in the case arises where the Sydney Paintworks employees delayed the task
completion due to illness thus leading to the incomplete nature of the redecoration job by 2nd
of March. As a result, Melbourne Builders according to its terms and condition on the
essence of time decided on termination of the contract and seek for compensation on the
breach of contract. The cause of the delay seems natural and one that does not totally amount
to the mistake of the paint firm. In the long run, it delayed the actual completion of the task
estimated to have been complete by the 1st of March according to the agreement placed by
Melbourne Builders. As a result, the firm sought to terminate the contract on the grounds that
the team implementing the task failed to deliver according to its required timings as stipulated
in its terms and conditions while seeking for a quote.
Outcome of the Case
The case entails a cross-examination of the terms and conditions and whether the
deliberations therein were enforced into law by the elements of the contract. In this, it shall
look at the offer and acceptance and whether terms and conditions were made clear to each
party as well as the actual signing of the contract as a legal binding. In the case, Sydney
Paintworks are likely to win, and the other party lose on the case. An offer in a contract
comes with terms and conditions where each member has to sign and agree before the
implementation of a contract.
On one side, Melbourne Builders accepted the offer placed by Sydney Paintwork and
specified on the acceptance of the first quote placed on 6th. Therein was a term and condition
on the back of the quote which clearly specified that ‘While every effort will be made to
carry out work within agreed timescales, a delay in completion of up to 10 working days is
not to be regarded as a breach of contract.’ According to the contract which was perceived to
be completed in a weeks’ time from the expected day of completion, the ten days specified
had not elapsed thus placing the paint firm on the right side of the law. Since Melbourne
Builders read and understood the quote form, it is expected that their acceptance to the offer
agrees that an extension of ten days would be comfortable for them.

However, there was no formal communication on acceptance of the terms of condition
offered by Melbourne Builders to Sydney Paintworks. At no point in the case are we told of
an acceptance on the offer placed thus does not hold the other party liable to the terms and
conditions expressed. According to (Knapp, Crystal and Prince 2016), such issues lead to
lack of clarity in contracts which might escalate to legal contestations. The lack of written
communication on the side of the paint works team indicates no legal binding agreement on
the terms and condition stipulated by Melbourne Builders. However, the acceptance to offer
and a part payment amounting to 50% of the 6th Jan offer stipulates agreement to the terms
and conditions.
In the case, breach of contract can only materialize if Sydney Paintworks made an agreement
or acceptance to the counter offer placed by the Melbourne Builders. In the case, we are only
informed of Melbourne builders sending an acceptance to the 6th Jan offer where further
communication between the two entities led to an agreement on the stat date of the work and
no further agreement on the terms and conditions set. Melbourne builders would have a
positive court outcome on their side if it countered the terms and condition of the quotation
placed by the paint firm and asked for a review or automatic disqualification of the firm
(McKendrick 2014). The fact that it accepted and sent back an acceptance puts them on the
losing side as their offer was not accepted in written but rather had a conversation leading to
the beginning of task.
In another scenario, while seeking compensation for the final work, Sydney Paintworks
would be defeated in seeking to enforce full payment for the total of $7800 sent in the second
quote. A contract cannot be said to be complete if the terms and conditions were unclear
where in the case each party is expected to seek for clarity on issues deemed contestable
(Osterland and Rose 2017). While the firm received half of the sum requested in their second
quote, the written notice in acceptance of the offer clearly stipulated acceptance of the 6th Jan
offer which amounted to $7000.
If an agreement is not reached in such a case, a decline to an offer is expected, a fact that
failed to occur in the given case. According to (Bodansky 2016), not every provision of a
legal instrument necessarily leads to a legal obligation. Each party went on to carry their part
of the assignment where one paid for the task and the other began to implement the

deliberations. Thus, it is evident that Melbourne Builders will lose the case to Sydney
Paintworks on the grounds of lack of a legally binding agreement signed after acceptance and
offer stage of a contract. A partial agreement and documentation shall act as a factor of lose
for one of the party.

References
Bodansky, D., 2016. The legal character of the Paris Agreement. Review of European,
Comparative & International Environmental Law, 25(2), pp.142-150.
Fried, C., 2015. Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University
Press, USA.
Knapp, C.L., Crystal, N.M. and Prince, H.G., 2016. Problems in Contract Law: cases and
materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
McKendrick, E., 2014. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press
(UK).
Osterland, T. and Rose, T., 2017. Correctness of Smart Contracts for Consistency
Enforcement. ERCIM NEWS, (110), pp.18-19.