This paper is regarding the business laws and there implication in the due course of transactions betweent the parties in deal and their duties towards each other. However, there has been given two case studeis in which different scnarios are given. The first one is regarding the terms of trade and the otherone is emphisisng over the sales of the goods law and the postal laws held there in. this is a analostical and judgemental work in which the scenarios given are analosed in light rullings of present in the constitutions and previus case laes present in the Major References. Thus, with all the findings given on the cse studies are provided with some case reference as well.
Here in this case, Adam is an owner of a flower shop who wants to sell his shop to Eve. To show his business as going fantastically fine, he showed Eve his book of accounts. Adam exagerated the annual turn over of the business and to do so he told that the monthly turnonver of his business is not less than $50000 per month, which raises the total turnover upto $600000. However, these calculations were wrong. It was because, the period in which Adam showed the books of accounts to Eve, was the period of peak season for the business. And subsequently, there comes a time in the when monthly tunrnover gets lower to $30000 only, making the total turnover up to only $540000. Eve purchases the busienss with a view that the business would have better earning potential.
There comes no remedy for the losses if occurred to Eve from the flower shop. It is because the books of accounts were open to Eve as well. She could has been more deligent in her busienss skills and could know her actual turnover of the business(Fracone, 1977). Futher more, she reliad on her perception about th epotentials the flower shop had rather than Adam’s words. Thus, there comes no liabiltiy on Adam if Eve found the business to be less potential or profitable once she had purchased it (Grundmann, 2011).
Although it was the duty of Adam to tell Eve about each and every thing about the business, but still Eve cannot claim for any loss held to them. It is because, Adam has not intentionally made any concealment or fraudulent statement to Eve for the sale of his business. And Eve should have been morevigilant in her business skills before making assessment about the business.
Here in this case, Agnew was the plaintiff who had a plea against Reed for selling his business of coffee shop to Agnew fraudulently. During the hearing of case he further explained his petition by saying that Reed while selling the business told that he found the business to be profitable. It was because, in an informal talk, Reed said that the cost of making one cup of coffee was much lesser than its price. Thus, he made a perception about the potential profit in the business. Thus, he subsequently purchased the business after few months of that talk. Defendant was on a point that the talk was informal and there are many other expenditures that come up during the due course of business. Court in its judgement made defendant free from any liability, suggesting plaintiff to be more vigilant and conscious for making perception about the business concern and its profitability.
If in case, Eve would has conscious asked Adam about the annual turnover of the business before making the transaction, and Adam would have given the same statement, here in this situation Eve would have been right in claiming the liability from Adam. It was because, the Adam would have been giving wrong statement for showing his business to be more potential able than the reality("Sales. Sale of Goods Act. Inquiry", 1913). Thus, if Adam remained on making wrong statement for selling its business and Eve would have claimed on Adam for this fraud, Adam would be held liable to pay Eve for making wrongful statement.
Boral and Brian are the two businessmen who have been doing their businesses since 10 years. Robert was the supplier of Brain who supplied flowers to the Brain as merchandize. However, the terms of trade were that Brain used to place order on every Monday to Robert the requirement of flowers. However, Robert used to send the acceptance on the subsequent Wednesday and used to send the ordered flowers on Thursday.
However, on one Wednesday Brain did not received any confirmation of the order from Robert and subsequently contacted another dealer of flowers to fulfil his demand. Brain also paid a lot of money as advance to the new vendor for the delivery of flowers on Thursday. However, on Thursday Brain received delivery from both of the vendors. On inquiry, it was found that Robert did post the acceptance of order which remained unable to reach Brain due to postal strike. But Brain on plea of not receiving the acceptance decided not to pay Robert any amount.
Here in this case, as the Robert has made posted the communication of his acceptance of the order as soon as he received the order, thus it is his right to get indemnified for the amount of order. So he may claim his amount of order from Brain("The Postal Laws—Amendments Needed", 1875). It is because, he should have waited for the reply from Robert, whether in form of acceptance of denial. Brain should have inquired before making the second order. He should have also checked the postal services before going for another order.
Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B &Aldi 681 is the first case related to the communication of offer and acceptance through the Post. This is known to be the first case law defining the postal laws as well. Adams offered to sale the wool to Lindsell through a post received by offeree on 7th September. Offeree wrote the acceptance letter to the Adams on 8th September. However, this letter did not reached offeror till 11thSeptember and he sold the wool to the third party of the subsequent day. However, acceptor filed a case against Adams for the breach of contract. Although, Adam remained able to establish that he did notreceived the acceptance. But, the Honorable court asked Adam to pay for the losses to Lindsell for not waiting for the receipt of acceptance. Moreover, Law J, the Judge also established the law that acceptance is when the acceptance letter is posted, whether received by the offeror or not.
Here in this scenario, Robert actually made a counter offer about the subject matter of the contract of sale(SPIRO, 1980). It is because, he is not accepting the e offer of Brain as it was made originaland by changing the quantity of subject matter of the contract, and he actually made a counter contract. However, now this counter offer is subject matter to the acceptance of the Brain
According to the mirror image rule, the offer should be acceptance should be made accordingly in the same sense about the subject matter of the contract. Thus, offer can be accepted as it has been made. As Robert is going to change the subject matter of the contract by changing the quantity of the flowers to be delivered, so his right to claim for the order would not remain any more.
Hyde v Wrench  EWHC Ch. J90 is the case law that narrate the rulings of acceptance under English Laws. According to the facts of case, Wrench offered Hyde to sale the house for £1200 for which Hyde dined. Wrench made other offer for £1000 for which Hyde made a counter offer for the purchase of house for £950. As £950 offer wasdined by Wrench and he sold the two other party. But Hyde agreed to pay £1000 after new contract was signed and sued Wrench for selling the house to other party. However, court held £950 to be the final offer which remained unaccepted and held Wrench to be free from any liability.
If Robert was unable to fulfill the bigger order and could have only fulfilled half of the offer, in this case, the acceptance of this new offer was required by law from Brain. If he had not accepted and Robert sent the half of order, in this case he would be legally has any right to claim over Brain.
Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Aldi 681 .
Contract. Offer. Invitation to Treat. (1925). Columbia Law Review, 25(6), p.838.
Fracone, J. (1977). BUSINESS LAW IS BUSINESS Law. American Business Law Journal, 15(1), pp.7-10.
Grundmann, S. (2011). The Future of Contract Law. European Review of Contract Law, 7(4).
Hays, A. and Thayer, F. (1945). Legal Control of the Press. Concerning Those Potential or Actual Controls That Affect the Press, Particularly Libel, Privacy, Contempt, Copyright, Regulation of Advertising and Postal Laws. Harvard Law Review, 58(6), p.881.
Hyde v Wrench  EWHC Ch. J90 .
Sales. Sale of Goods Act. Notice of Shipment by Sea. (1913). Harvard Law Review, 27(2), p.187.
Scott, K. (1955). Contract—Offer and Acceptance—Place of Acceptance. Cam. Law. J., 13(02), p.148.
SPIRO, G. (1980). COMMERCIAL LAW FOR BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTING STUDENTS: A COMPLETE BUSINESS LAW TEXT AND CPA LAW REVIEW. American Business Law Journal, 18(3), pp.436-438.
The Postal Laws—Amendments Needed. (1875). Sci Am, 33(16), pp.240-241.