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.