Case Study: International Sponge Importers V Bilsland

Mr Grant and Mr Bragg, who owns 50 % each of the share in a company called “Premier Resorts Limited”, wanted to make a contract to sell 50 % shareholding of Mr Grant to Mr Bragg at price of £346,760. Mr Christopher Jenkins who is a charted company secretary acted as an agent to facilitate the contract by drafting agreement letter. There were several tensions between them as a result there were several negotiations regarding the contract through e-mails and telephonic conversations between Mr Jenkins and Mr Grant. The first e-mail was sent by Jenkins to Grant, to make an offer that Bragg is ready to buy Grant’s shares based on terms drafted by “Dixon Ward wording”. On the same day at afternoon Jenkins and Grant had telephonic conversation, where Grant said that he would make contract only if Bragg is ready to show his future plans of the company and after making sure that the instalments will be made properly without fail. In the second e-mail Jenkins informed Grant that it is not possible to reveal the future plans of the company and asked Grant to confirm or edit the memo. Mr Grant replies in third e-mail, that he is no more interested in knowing future plans and Bragg is committed to buy my share, hence he must pay. Jenkins replied in fourth e-mail

Ray Soles, the Vice President of Supply Chain Management at Sabor Inc. He has the task of making sure Sabor Inc. has enough supply of Marconil to keep up with demand. Recently, Ray’s three suppliers have all advised there is a possible supply shortage of Marconil, and without a form, long term contract Sabor’s suppliers cannot guarantee the raw material will be available. Needless to say, Ray has a few decisions to make but there are few things he must keep in mind. If long term contracts must be signed, at what price with this affect his procurement flexibility and what strategies are available to Ray for ensuring his demand of marconil? If Ray must sign long term contracts, what criteria must he establish to do so? With or without signing

In Austral Standard Cables Pty Ltd v Walker, the court found that if the purchaser had not stated that they would not complete due to financial difficultly prior to the settlement, the vendor would be ready, able and willing to complete. Therefore the vendor’s failure to

The duties undertaken by Kylie in the day to day activities include cleaning and repairs to the shop, as well as keeping accounts and ordering stock from suppliers. This can suggest that she was given”actual express” authority to order stock from suppliers particularly since she was transacting using the business account. The definition of Actual Implied authority states that “Provided nothing is stated to the contrary in the partnership agreement, the powers of partners to bind the firm by their acts usually done in the course of business generally includes purchasing goods usually used by the firm”, which in the case of JJJ is the couch and side table. Similarly, the case of Molinas v Smith [1932] where a partner of the farming business purchased machinery used for the day to day business activities and exercised their “Implied authority” to do so. As a result, the court held that the partnership was legally bound, in that both partners were required to pay the outstanding amount owed to the machinery company. The correlation with JJJ is evident in that both cases purchased goods for the use of the business.

I have being living in Montroogermy Alabama for over six months now.I recentlt met the defendent at a local church I have been attending. The defendent has a family owned produce business an approached me about possibly supplying me with new products. He offered me samples of Muscadine grapes. He offered me these grapes or to purchase samples of products with these seeds. The samples I was provided became very popular with my customers. I began to regular orders with the defendents company. As these products becane popular I also began to invest heavily in the advetisement of these products. Due to the ongoing business relationship and after reviewing my investment costs I decided to write a requirements contract. I provided this contract to the to the defendent to safe guard my investments. This contract was clear and concise.This contract guaranteed a price schedule consistent with what I have always paid the defendent for these Muscadine grape products. The contract was presented to the owners son who I assumed was a fair representative of the company. I informed the son that this contract needed to be signed to guareente a continuing business realtionship that implies duty of good faith and fair dealing . The defendent has informed me of a offer from a company in Texas that offered to pay twice the rate for these products with the conditon of a output contract as apart of the deal(case study). Due to a skyrocketing demand for these Muscadine products and this

Hanrahan, P., Ramsay, I. & Stapledon, G. (2010), Commercial Applications of Company Law 10th ed. Sydney, NSW: CCH

Analysis: This situation should belong to Offer and Acceptance Section. An offer is not valid until it is received by the offered, and the offeror is not limited by the offer until such time as it is accepted according to Communication of an Offer. So in this case, Bishop received the letter on May 3rd, before May 3rd, it is not bounded. On may 22nd, Bishop wrote to this company and accepted this offer. According to Acceptance of an Offer, the acceptance must take the form if certain words or acts in accordance with the offer that will indicate to the offeror that the offeree has accepted the offer. In addition, the acceptance of the offer takes place when the letter of acceptance, properly addressed and the postage paid, is placed in the postbox or post office. So for Bishop (defendant), it obeys the rules of an offer and acceptance. For Armstrong Aggregates Company (plaintiff), they cannot change their offer by increasing the offer because Bishop had already accepted the offer and sent to this company on May 22nd. Meanwhile, the company did not communicate with Bishop about change the price. Therefore, this action is not valid and this company should still accept this offer at $180.

In this case of Superior Dispatch Inc. prevalent claims in its objection that Inscorp neglected to give notification of the one-year contractual constraints procurement, as needed by segment 2695.4, subdivision whenever and that Superior had no genuine learning of the procurement. These charges identifying with notification of the strategy terms concern the nondisclosure of realities, instead of legitimate conclusions.

Under the Uniform Commercial Code, if a buyer has accepted the goods, they may subsequently revoke acceptance if goods are nonconforming and nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to the buyer. Hartz had the right to reject the soybeans due to nonconforming goods, and to notify Coleman of their intentions, which they did. The lower court found Coleman liable under the contract ?against the clear preponderance of the evidence,? and therefore, Hartz is entitled to the pursued

The check is a negotiable instrument and is honored by the bank to which it is drawn and in some circumstances is endorsed by third party like discounting of bills of exchange. In this case, the issue is discussed that whether the third party, a check cashing store qualifies as a holder of check in due course and can collect the amount of check or not.

In this law case, there are different issues that have come from this case that I have analyzed. This case deals with agency law. Agency law is, which is the establishment of the agency relationship, authority of agents, and the duties agents must uphold. Agency law can be very tricky because verbal and written contracts can sometimes be upheld in court or not.

Similar to the American judicial process we must first begin with the facts that surround this case. Marshall owns a health food store that is utilizing my Muscadine grapes, largely due to their high antioxidant qualities, and places a modest phone orders. Over time Marshall has increased his orders, which I have always fulfilled without delay. I have invoiced Marshall with net 30 terms but Marshall has not been prompt in his payment, continuously paying past the established due date. Unbeknownst to me, Marshall receives a signature from my minor son, who agrees to the “formality” of a written contract that guarantees our continued business partnership. After the Muscadines are featured in an article by The Huffington Post, demand for these distinct grapes skyrockets, prompting several new offers from as far as Texas. Furthermore, the offers that I receive are

In conclusion, taking everything into account, the consideration and intention are presented in the case. The court is able to legally enforce this because Ruth’s company are already in a contract with Marques and were willing to make few changes such as increase his payment. This means the parties intended to be legally bound when the offer was made.

It is within the agent’s apparent authority to sell a property on behalf of the principal to make descriptions of the property to the buyer. However, if the representations made are false, the principal will be liable for the acts of that agent where the leading case is Aliotta v Broadmeadows Bus Service Ltd (1988) A.T.P.R. 40 – 873 which the court held that the agents has mislead the plaintiff by not revealing all the material information to the plaintiff.

The purpose of this assignment is to discuss the creation and application the case law resulting from the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson . This decision is often cited in relation to the tort of negligence and a duty of care. As such it could be misunderstood as being the preeminent case for the principles of negligence or duty of care alone. It is however the landmark precedent case for the tort of negligence outside of a contract when taking into account ‘duty of care’ and the ‘neighbour priciple’.