Sprawdzcie prosze! Bardzo pilne!!!!!!

Temat przeniesiony do archwium.
Prace sama pisalam, jest to "problem case" ktory musze oddac dzis do polnocy. Bardzo prosze o pomoc w sprawdzeniu pod wzgledem poprawnosci jezykowej, bledow itp. BARDZO DZIEKUJE!



Question 1

Breach of contract is a situation in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance . Plasmabean provided Terpinex A instead of Terpinex B what made for Fibro impossible to create LCR. I other words sense (basis) of this agreement failed to exist. (przestala istniec?). So I think there was breach of contract.

Accordind to the case of British Westinhouse Electric and manufacturing Co. v. Underground electric railways Co. of London [1912] AC 673 the innocent party “should take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss cosequent on the breach, and debars from claiming any part of damage which is due to his neglect to take such steps”. So I think that Plasmabeans should compensate Fibro for two days of normal business and for the cost of replacing the pipework. Fibro can not claim compensation for aggravation because both sides of the contract are professionals and it is accepted as part of the risk involved in business dealings.

Me and my wife (we study together on W222 course) started searching this case on 16 May. On that day we browsed through information given in eTMA 1. We used the “Google” search engine searching “Balfour Beatty Lord Jauncey Scotland concrete”. and received 20 results. I saw that one case was repeated more often than others. It was Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Scottish Power plc 1994 SLT 807. I accessed the pages to determine what the case contained.. Then I went to the LexisNexis and Westlaw pages to read this case in detail. I reached specific decription of this case, speeches of the Lords and traced the overall progress of the case through progressive court hearings.


Question 2

In case of Fibro Ltd. v. Starclouds Partners Hans’ contact on Monday was invitation to treat.

Leo’s message from Tuesday was a valid offer. It was created between two proffesionals. They were represented by authorised agents. So prerequisite requirements of capacity were fulfilled

Starcloud stated there all necessary conditions like commodity, its price, conditions of transport and terms of acceptance. There were no obvious drawbacks as to the points of agreement with Fibro. So willingness to be bound was present as well. Both sides were sure what did they approve of.


I my view Fibro’s fax from Wednesday has merely been a request for further information. It did not contain any new terms (see Stevenson, Jaques & Co. v. McLean (1880) 5QBD 346 ).

The second element of contract is an acceptance - when Hans left the message on the answerphone. I think all the requirements of valid acceptance had been met (Brinkibon v. Stahag Stahl[1982]1 All ER 293). The message was left in the alloted time (before midday on Thursday) by business company on demand of other proffesional body. However, it is possible that the court might conclude it is no acceptance because it was listened on Thursday evening, so it reached the offeror, after the scheduled time (Entores v. Miles Far East Corp. [1955]) . But from the other side in this case Denning LJ underlined that there is a possible situation when a contract may be concluded even if the offeror (through his own fault) does not actually receive the acceptance. Fibro can not take responsibility for Starclouds’ negligence (not listening to the answerphone) – Hans left the message during Starcloud’s working hours and Starcloud knew that Fibro had time to express his acceptance till midday on Thursday. So I think that Fibro filfilled all conditions of a valid acceptance.

Intention to create legal relations was fulfilled as well. Both sides of the contract are professional bodies. So the presumption that both parties had the intention of creating legal relations is working.

The fourth element is consideration. Consideration under English law is anything of value (an item or service), which each party to a legally-binding contract must agree to exchange if the contract is to be valid . In this case there is an offer to supply Star-isopropene in return for payment.

How about contentions put forward by South & Co. Solicitors?
Invitation to treat is an action by one party which may appear to be a contractual offer but which is actually inviting others to make an offer of their own. According to me conditions like commodity, its price, conditions of transport and terms of acceptance are so detailed that there can not be any doubts that those parties wanted to be bound and they knew exactly what do they approve of.
Fibro’s reply of Wednesday was not a counter-offer. It did not include new terms. The most important phrase is “let us know if you will be prepared…”. It is nothing but a request for information. (Stevenson, Jaques & Co. v. McLean (1880) 5QBD 346).

When hns left a message on an answerphone it was a valid acceptance. Fibro and Starcloud are both business companies and Hans accepted the requirements of Starcloud. Additionally it were Starcloud’s working hours. Hans can not take responsibility for Starcloud’s negligence in not listening to the answerphone.

Question 3

If there was a breach of contract, Starcloud Partner is liable to Fibro Ltd And it is unlimited liability. Section 9 of Partnership Act 1890 says that every partner in a firm is liable jointly with the other partners… for all debts and obligations of the firm”. This firm had not yet been incorporated so the liability is unlimited.
sprawdze ang - jak przyjdze z pracy - i sprawdze 'case. widze, bledy w ang.
Dziekuje. Czekam.
Pierwsze, jak piszesz o legal cases - to lepiej uzywac Legal English -
Nie ...I think - ale ..I consider
Based on the facts of the case, I consider...
However, in a similar case ....
Jest mi bardzo trudno powiedziec, czy nawet odpowiedziales na pytanie - lepiej zawsze wklej 'question' - wtedy moge lepiej zrozumiec.

'bargained-for exchange' (czy to jest contract? nie uzywaj tego) is not honoUred by ..
Plasmabean provided Terpinex A instead of Terpinex B 'what made' (po jakiemu to - WHICH MADE) 'for' nie rozumiem tego 'for tutaj) Fibro impossible to create LCR. I other words THE basis of this agreement failed to exist.
So I 'think' CONSIDER THAT there was breach of contract. (Nie jestem tego az 120% pewna-soprawdz case)

AccordinG to the case of British Westinhouse Electric and
manufacturing (wszystkie nowe slowa piszemy duza litera i niema kropki po 'v') Co. v. Underground Electric Railways Co. of London
>[1912] 'AC 673' (to niekiedy nie jest potrzebne) .. coNsequent on the breach, and 'debars' (nie PREVENTS) THE INJURED PARTY from claiming any part of damage which is due to his neglect to take such steps". So I 'think' CONSIDER that Plasmabeans should compensate Fibro for 'two days of normal business' (dlaczego 2 days? basis-czase ref?) and for the cost of replacing the pipework.
Fibro can not claim compensation for aggravation because both sides of
the contract are 'professionals' (zauwaz jak piszemy professionals i czy to jest istotne w tej case?) and it is accepted as part of the risk
involved in business dealings.

'Me and my wife' (MY WIFE AND I) (we ARE studyING THE W222 course together) started RE searching this case on 16 May. 'On that day' (niepotrz) We browsed ..and 'received' OBTAINED 20 results.
I accessed the pages to determine 'what the case contained' THE FACTS OF THE CASE
...through progressive court hearings (ie from the ......to the ).
Question 2
In case of Fibro Ltd. v. Starclouds Partners Hans' THE contact on Monday
was PURELY AN invitation to treat.

Leo's message from Tuesday 'was' CONSTITUTED a valid offer. It was created between 'two profesSionals' (czy to jest istotne w tej case, ze oni sa professionals?). They were represented by 'authorised agents' (tutaj wypadalo by napisac co to jest authorised agent - i podac case ref). So
THE prerequisite requirements of capacity were fulfilled.

Starcloud stated tall THE necessary conditions..There 'were' DID NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY obvious drawbacks as to the points of non-agreement with Fibro. So
willingness to be bound was 'present as well' EVIDENT..
Both PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT APPEARED TO BE IN AGREEMENT AS TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT.

IN my view Fibro's fax from Wednesday 'has'WAS merely a request for
further information. It did not contain any new terms (see Stevenson,
Jaques & Co. v (bez kropki) McLean (1880) (5QBD 346-niepotr)

The second element of contract is an acceptance - when Hans left the
message on the answerphone- CZY TO jest cale zdanie? cos tu brakuje) I think THAT all the requirements of A valid acceptance had been met (Brinkibon v. Stahag Stahl[1982]1 (All ER 293-niepotrz).
The message was left 'in' PRIOR TO albo AT? the alloted time (before midday on Thursday) by A company AS demandED BY THE other PARTY. However, it is possible that the court might conclude THAT THIS CANNOT BE SEEN TO BE AN ACCEPTANCE, because 'it' THE MESSAGE was listened TO on Thursday evening, so it reached the offeror, after the 'scheduled' ALLOTED time (Entores v. Miles Far East Corp. [1955]). 'But from the other side' TEGO NIGDY nie pisz -HOWEVER in this case Denning LJ
Hans left the message during Starcloud's 'working hours' (czy to jest istotne do kontraktu?) and Starcloud knew that Fibro had time to express his acceptance UNtill midday on Thursday. So I 'think' BELIEVE that Fibro fUlfilled all THE conditions of a valid acceptance.
Both sides 'of' TO the contract are professional bodies. So theRE EXISTS A presumption that both parties had the intention of creating legal relations.

Consideration under English law is anything of value (nie zawsze, papierek z cukierka moze byc consideration)

According to THE FACTS OF THE CASE, conditions like commodity, price, conditions of transport and terms of acceptance are so detailed
that there can not be any doubts that those parties 'wanted' WISHED to be bound
and they 'knew exactly what do they approve of' WERE FULLY AWARE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT.
Fibro's reply 'of' MADE ON Wednesday was not a counter-offer.
It is nothing but a request for FURTHER information.
(Stevenson, Jaques & Co. v McLean (1880) (5QBD 346-niepotrz).

Additionally 'it were' THIS WAS DONE DURING Starcloud's working
hours. Hans cannot take responsibility for Starcloud's negligence in
not listening to the answerphone ON TIME.

If there was a breach of contract, Starcloud Partner is liable to
Fibro Ltd AS it is AN unlimited liability. Section 9 of THE Partnership Act
1890 STATES that every partner...

Jak juz czytasz 'cases' to staraj uzywac te same slowa ktore tam sa uzywane - z Legal English.
Jak juz studiujesz to najwazniejsze:

case (kto v kogo) fakty i jaki wniosek - ....to trzeba na pamiec wkuwac
dostaniesz wiecej punktow za rok (jak bedziesz pamietala)
dostaniesz punkty za 'Judge' (jak bedziesz pamietala jego/jej nazwisko i tytul)
a jak chcesz extra, extra - to w ktorym 'Court'
aha i jeszcze
civil cases...Smith v Jones czytamy...Smith AND Jones
criminal cases... R V Smith czytamy... Regina (The Crown) AGAINST Smith
Temat przeniesiony do archwium.

 »

Szkoły językowe