BUL 6310LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS

Peters Claimagainst Glenn:

Peter would claim a breach of contract against Glenn not supplying the 10,000 bales of cotton.
His claim would be based on the fact that he accepted the offer when he responded to Glenns
email on August 23 2011. An offer is a manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain that
justifies another person in understanding that his or her assent will conclude the bargain good.
For an offer to be valid, the offeror must have an intention to be bound by the offer, the terms
must be definite and the offer must be communicated to the offeree. All these criteria were met;
therefore Glenns offer to sell 10,000 bales of cotton to Peter would be valid. Peter would also
claim that both parties have a history of doing business and offers in the past have always been
accepted by email. He would therefore claim that his acceptance to the offer was valid and Glenn
should compensate him for a breach of contract. Well stated
Glenns Defense to Peter:
Glenn's defense to Peter would be that the offer was terminated by Operation of Law. This
means that a reasonable time has passed and therefore the offer was terminated. Glenn clearly
stated in his offer that he needed a reply quickly because he needed his warehouse space. The
fact that Peter did not respond for 26 days would give Glenn a good defense. He could argue that
the offer was terminated because a reasonable time had passed and therefore he could not be held
liable for a breach of contract. RAMSGATE VICTORIA HOTEL V MONTEFIORE [1866] if you
cite a case, you need to tell why it applies
Glenn could also argue that when Peter stated that, he would be most pleased if Glenn would
take $22.50 per pound for the cotton he made a counter offer. A counter offer would make the
original offer null and void and therefore Glenn would not have to sell Peter the cotton. Peter in
his defense to this point could argue that his statement was not a counter offer, but a counter
inquiry and therefore would not affect his acceptance of the original offer. STEVENSON
JAQUES & CO V MCLEAN (1880) 5 QBD 345 Queen's Bench Division
.
Stewies claim against Peter
Stewie would claim that he relied on Peters offer to his detriment and therefore should be
compensated based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel or detrimental
reliance can only be enforced if the injured party can prove the following
1. There was a Promise (Peter agreed to supply 10,000 bales of cotton to Stewie).
2. Justifiable Reliance this means that the promise must make the promisee take action
that he would not otherwise have taken (Stewie rented cotton processing equipment in
anticipation of receiving his shipment of cotton).
3. Foreseeability This means that the action taken in reliance of the promise must be
reasonably foreseeable by the promisor. In this case Stewie who owns a cloth company
rents cotton processing equipment in anticipation of receiving $10,000 bales of cotton.
This action could be deemed reasonably foreseeable by the promisor.
4. Injustice In layman terms this seeks to determine if the promisee has been harmed by
his reliance on the promise. Stewie has been injured by the promise because he has
rented cotton processing equipment and has no cotton to process. If however, Stewie
could return the equipment that he rented for a full refund (highly unlikely) then he
would not have been injured.
Peters Defence to Stewie
The question in a claim of Promissory Estoppel is Did the plaintiff reasonably rely on a promise
that the defendant should have foreseen. The only defense available to Peter would be denial.
Peter could claim that he could not have reasonably foreseen that Stewie would have rented
cotton processing equipment within 1 day of finalising the agreement. Peter finalised the
agreement with Stewie on August 23. By August 24 when Peter contacted Stewie to tell him that
he could not supply the cotton, Stewie had already rented the cotton processing equipment. Peter
would therefore have a good defense to argue against being liable for Stewies actions.
POPS CONES, I NC. V. RESORTS I NTERNATI ONAL HOTEL, I NC. NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR
COURT 704 A.2D 1321 (N.J. SUPER. CT. 1998).
References:
Constance E. Bagley, Diane W. Savage (2010). MANAGERS AND THE LEGAL
ENVIRONMENT. Ohio: South Western Cengage Learning.
Alaska Court System. CONTRACT LAW- INTRODUCTORY COMMENTARY AND USE
NOTE. Retrieved from http://www.courts.alaska.gov/insciv/24.00.doc
Very well done