Procurement and Contract Management
Adams V Cullen
In early 2013 Edward Cullen approached the Adams Family to negociate a long term rental of a obsolete warehouse site, in order to develop low cost lodging. During early dialogues it was agreed that the undertaking would be ready by June 2014, with Adams to cover building costs until the flats were ready to be sublet.
In March 2013 Cullen’s canvassers sent Adams a bill of exchange rental understanding guaranting them if they heard nil more within 10 yearss that Cullen had, for his portion, affirmed the footings and had executed the understanding. Not hearing from Cullen or his canvassers, Adams assumed the undertaking was to travel in front and commenced work. In November 2013, without informing Adams, Cullen decided to the rental understanding put on clasp, based on negative information gathered in a recent feasibleness survey. In January 2014 notified Adams that he would no longer be renting the estate, on the footing he had non officially and lawfully executed the rental. At this point Adams had incurred considerable disbursal on the undertaking, presuming that they had a lawfully binding understanding with Cullen, and still had a contractual understanding with Better Constructions.
Promissory Estoppel offers Adams a way for legal resort against Cullen. As they may action for specific public presentation, implementing Cullen to keep his promise to rent the flats. Promissory estoppel Acts of the Apostless as a tool to rectify an unfairness where a promise has been made by one party, which another party has relied upon to its hurt ( Szantyr, 2011 ) . In this instance Adams has relied on the implied contractual understanding formed with Cullen to get down the undertaking, set uping assorted contracts with 3rd parties in the procedure. It could be argued that while no formal contract was commence between the two parties, Cullen knew of the work being undertaken by Adams and his inactivity could circumstance established encouragement or incentive for Adams to go on work ( Waltons Stores ( Interstate ) Ltd V Maher, 1988, p. 387 ) .
Therefore, Cullen’s backdown from the contractual understanding could compare to conscienceless behavior, therefore going apt for legal action. By leting Adams to set about the work ( using contactors ) under a false premise that a contract had come into being.
Eastside Constructions v Adams Retentions
Eastside Constructions ( EC ) is undertaking legal action on the footing that their stamp should hold been accepted, instead than that offered by Better Constructions, for the contract to plan and build a figure of self-contained units. Their claim is that, due to their proved path record with this type of undertaking and their lower priced quotation mark, they should hold been awarded the stamp.
However, traditionally the stamp procedure is viewed as an invitation to handle and is no more than an invitation to do an offer, with no binding legal duty to any peculiar contractor ( Szantyr, 2011 ) . Therefore Adams was free to choose whichever contractor they would wish. However, given that Adams Holdings issued specific choice standards as portion of the stamp procedure it is possible for EC to ordain legal proceedings. The petition for stamp becomes an duty of good religion, necessitating the inviter ( Adams ) to supply an equal chance to all stamps and reexamine them correspondingly ( NSW Department of Finance & A ; Servicess, 2010 ) .
If it can be proven that Adams did non follow the rating process listed in their stamp choice standards, EC may hold resort to claim the costs of fixing its stamp ( Hughes Aircraft V Airservices Australia, 1997, p. 146 ) . The result of this instance is determinate on if it can be proven that Adams did non follow the choice standards outlined in their petition for stamp.
Better Constructions V Big Equipment Supplies
The difference of Better Constructions ( BC ) V Big Equipment Supplies ( BES ) sees BC actioning BES for breach of contract. After BC were required to buy edifice supplies ( scaffolding supplies ) from a 3rd party, at an increased sum.
BES advertised the points for a cost of $ 28,500, an offer was made by BC to buy the goods over a series of monthly payments. BES rejected this offer but made a counter offer of the original full sum, therefore going the offerer in this state of affairs. Upon comparing the monetary value against tantamount equipment, BC decided to accept the offer, directing a missive of credence on May 6Thursday. The missive was received by BES May 8Thursday. However, as of May 7Thursdaythe goods had already been sold to a 3rd party. By and large, the offerer can revoke any offer it has made, as until an offer is accepted there is no adhering contract. Therefore, the inquiry in this instance is when the offer was accepted ( Szantyr, 2011 ) .
The postal regulation allows us to find when the offer was accepted. The postal regulation provinces that if credence is made by station, than any offer is accepted every bit shortly as the missive is posted, even if bringing of the missive is delayed or the missive ne’er reaches the offerer ( allowing decently addressed, stamped and posted ) ( Adams v Lindsell, 1818, p. 250 ) . Therefore, BES’s offer ( counteroffer ) was accepted May 7Thursday, before they sold the equipment to the 3rd party.
Consequently, Better buildings should be able to lawfully obtain compensation for losingss from the contract breach by Big Equipment Supplies ( as a consequence of BC holding to buy the same equipment from a 3rd party ) .
C. vann woodwards v Better Constructions
C. vann woodwards ( WW ) are in the procedure of make up one’s minding whether or non to set about legal action against Better Constructions ( BC ) for neglecting to pay an excess payment that they had promised, in add-on to the original contract sum.
BC contracted WW to put in lumber framing, at a fee of $ 30,000 and to be completed by December 1st. However, after deliberation about the impacts and punishments of late bringing of the building undertaking BC promised a farther $ 5000 if the undertaking was completed by December 1st.
This difference deals with facets of contract jurisprudence, specifically, Consideration in bing contractual responsibilities ( commercial benefit ) ( Australiancontractlaw.com, 2014 ) . In this instance consideration was originally given by BC to WW to finish the lumber framing by a set day of the month at a rate of $ 30,000. BC will reason that the farther consideration ( of $ 5000 ) falls under the old contractual agreements and range, and therefore they are non apt to carry through the new consideration. However, it could be proven that BC received an extra ‘practical benefit’ from the on clip completion of the work, viz. ( Szantyr, 2011 ) :
- The continuance of work without arrest ;
- The turning away of a punishment from the edifice proprietor for late completion of the edifice undertaking ; and
- The turning away of the problem and disbursal of holding to prosecute another sub-contractor.
Therefore, although falling under an bing contractual responsibility, BC received a ‘practical benefit’ when WW completed the plants on clip, therefore supplying good consideration ( Williams v Roffey Bros. & A ; Nicholls ( Contractors ) Ltd. , 1990, p. 512 ) . WW should peruse BC to claim the promised payment.
Australiancontractlaw.com. 2014. Australian Contract Law | Julie Clarke. [ on-line ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.australiancontractlaw.com/ [ Accessed: 4 Apr 2014 ] .
Gooley, J. , Radan, P. and Vickovich, I. 2007.Principles of Australian contract jurisprudence. Chatswood, NSW: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Groves, M. 2005.Law and authorities in Australia. Sydney: Federation Press.
Innovation.gov.au. 2014.What is valid consideration?[ online ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.innovation.gov.au/smallbusiness/LegalHelp/LegalTopics/BusinessRelationships/Pages/WhatIsValidConsideration.aspx [ Accessed: 4 Apr 2014 ] .
NSW Department of Finance & A ; Servicess. 2010.Tendering Manual. Sydney: NSW Department of Finance & A ; Servicess.
Poole, J. 2004.Textbook on contract jurisprudence.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Szantyr, M. 2011.Lecture Notes – Procurement and Contract Management. Adelaide: University of South Australia.
Adams V Lindsell. 1818. 160 ER 250.
Hughes Aircraft V Airservices Australia. 1997. 1 ALR 146
William waltons Shops ( Interstate ) Ltd V Maher. 1988. 164 CLR 387.
Williams v Roffey Bros. & A ; Nicholls ( Contractors ) Ltd. 1990. 1 All ER 512.
J. Creech – Procurement and Contract Management – 2014