Analysis of Contract Law (Case Study Sample)

Analysis of Contract Law Position for Offhand Manor Hotel and Venture King Limited Student’s Name Institution of Affiliation Course Instructor Date Analysis of Contract Law Position for Offhand Manor Hotel and Venture King Limited Contract law constitutes the foundations of business relations, offering a legal frame for regulating rights and duties simultaneously with the possibilities of redress in economic transactions. The following essay discusses two significant contract law cases based on Offhand Manor Hotel (OMH) and Venture King Limited (King). The first example is based on the actual case of OMH Company and FGiant PG (FG), where the students are going to discuss the problems of offer and acceptance, contractual terms, breach, and remedies in connection with the purchase and installation of a refrigerated unit by OMH Company from FG where the latter refused to deliver the ordered unit on terms agreed between the parties. This paper analyzes the second scene: OMH's contract with King for the sale of furniture, contract formation, performing problems, liability for delay, and exclusion clauses. Scenario 1: Offhand Manor Hotel and FGiant PG Background Offhand Manor Hotel (OMH) was a big hotel that hired FGiant PG (FG) to buy and set up a cold room. FG offered a quotation to OMH on January 5. From this quotation, the total cost was a package price of £8000, including installation charges. According to the quotation, FG's terms and conditions were annexed with conditions that permitted an increase in price due to the rise in the prices of the components. At the same time, OMH responded to this offer by FG on January 9 by filling out the standard order form they gave, in which the prices of goods ordered were agreed to remain as they were at the time of order. The company under the name of FG received OMH's order on January 11 through email, in which they referred to the order, the terms and conditions of the website, and the right to change prices. However, such acknowledgment was not followed by immediate action, and installation of the refrigerated unit only took place early in March. At the end of the project, FG charged OMH £9500 for the parts, claiming that energy costs had gone up and that it was hard to find some of the materials. Legal Analysis In the case of OMH, a hotel suing FG, a gigantic company, for purchasing and installing a refrigerated unit, fundamental aspects of contract law are elicited. The first interaction between OMH and FG started with the FG's quotation that authorities the offer in the contract law regime. OMH answered through their order form, where several terms related to the price were stated. This would make what the other party said as a counter-offer of sorts. Through an email, FG confirmed, but only through OMH's order, in which they also cited their terms and conditions. This is a receipt and, by operation of law, a communication that brings about acceptance and, hence, a contract between two parties. This sequential pattern of the story is also within legal bounds. For instance, in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256, the court helps to define offer and acceptance in a contract by describing that an advertisement can be an offer provided that the advertisement contains the details of the bargain when accepted. FG put forward the binding and essential terms in the contracts in its terms and conditions, which are included in the quotation and later in the acknowledgment email. Such terms included provisions that authorized FG to change prices in some circumstances. This led me to the Court of Appeal case of Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461, where the court reiterated the principles that for the terms to be incorporated into any contract, they must be sufficiently brought to the attention of the contracting party. The subsequent failure in the function of the refrigerated unit properly can be considered a failure on the part of FG because of the improper installation of the system, and this was a breach of the contractual duties of FG, which was to provide equipment that fit for use. This exposure left FG liable for OMH's loss due to the defective unit. From Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC Exch J70, it is possible to derive principles concerning Consequential loss in connection with Breaches of contract and, therefore, the assessment of Damages in cases of breach of Contractual Obligations. As the offended party, OMH has the following legal options discussed below. These include asking for an order for specific performance to have the installation returns done correctly by FG or seeking a remedy in the form of the expended amount over and above that invoiced, for instance, the cost of replacing demolished stocks and customer disappointment. A case of loss of expected profits that a party can recover as a remedy for a breach of contract is seen in Poussard v Spiers and Pond (1876) 1 QBD 410, which demonstrates how courts evaluate the damages for unhatched eggs. Scenario 2: Venture King Limited and Offhand Manor Hotel Background Offhand Manor Hotel (OMH) offered to purchase furniture from Venture King Limited (King) for £ 25000 through a contract. The strings of interaction started after Wanda Round of OMH called King on January 22, 2009, regarding the order that had been placed. King responded to the order on January 29, informing the buyer about the standard business terms and stating that delivery dates were shown as estimates. Confusion was introduced regarding the delivery timeline, stated by King's Mr. Bishop and elaborated upon by Mrs. Castle. Lastly, it was delivered as planned but was aggravated by a strike that caused operational interruption and an injury in the unloading section. Legal Analysis Offhand Manor Hotel (OMH) is a business that contracted with Venture King Limited (King) in a business deal whereby King purchased furniture for £25 000. OMH's contract with King was created when Wanda Round, OMH, ordered King on January 22 through a confirmation email. King received this order on January 29 with additional information, which included the terms and conditions of doing business with the company, and these terms included provisions regarding guaranteed delivery dates. At common law, there was an offer by OMH by Wanda's message and acceptance by King through acknowledgment; therefore, there is a contract between them. This has a legal backing as provided in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 to the effect that acceptance through conduct or acknowledgment agrees. The problems of authority and representation emerged because of conflicted words from the pump about delivery dates. Initially, King's representative, Mr. Bishop, gave Wanda a definite delivery date for the product. Still, the representative of the King, Mrs. Castle, later said that the King does not guarantee a delivery date. In King's terms, any contractual provisions are deemed to be kept only if such commitments were affirmed by a company director, which explains the need to understand the scope of power in contractual relations. This principle is underscored by cases like Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480, whereby it was held that any promises made by employees constitute contractual terms of the business if they were approved by the company's appropriate officers or agents. The core issue can be traced back to the late delivery resulting from a strike that affected operations...