Legal Issues In Business Law

Answer :

Question 1

The case study being delineated in the context of this question is purposive for raising different legal issues. Amongst these, intention of the University for creating legal relations with different seed stocking organizations will definitely be in the forefront. Tender process is a medium through which individual can achieve procurement of goods and services. Contract law of Australia would be in a good agreement with such situation where exchange of goods and services are accomplished via medium of valid contract. 

According to the principles being provided by different contract laws prevailing in Australian territories such as Contracts Review Act 1958 (Vic) or Frustrated Contracts Act 1978 (NSW), another party forms a valid contract only when there is an ascertainable offer being made by a part followed by acceptance of that offer. There has to be common intention between the involved parties so that a legally valid agreement can be formed. This action has to follow provision of a consideration. However, request for tender is prerequisite for entering into a legal contract. On this ground, it can be propounded that University of Millennia has a close intention of establishing legal relations with any of the organizations been asked to participate in tender process. Since, there was no interchange of a sum of consideration among the individuals, thus, there was no legal relations been established between the parties. Therefore, no party can take legal actions for breaching a valid contract. It is thus, apparent that tendering process is preceding contractual relationship between the university and seed stocking organizations. 

In this context, tender bidding process being adopted by the Millennia University has to be equipped with some basic characterization of call for tender bidding. The characterization in this relation may be depicted as collaborating with chosen supplier so that contract can be realized with agile mentality. Apart from that, ensuring transparent pricing is also contextual in this context. This apparent move of Millennia University would create a collaborative legal relation with any of the suppliers namely Enviro, Plant Forever and Greenland. Precisely, it can be stated that prime intention of the University for entering into tendering process is locating preferred supplier so that contractual agreement can be provisioned in future for having a benefit on goods or services. 

However, it is worthy of being mentioned herein that tender request is not an offer that can serve the purpose of contract formation. Instead of that, tender request may be treated as an invitation for treatment. In this relation, the requestor namely the Millennia University can approach this tender process for making their offer with valid contract. As for example, in the case citation namely Pratt Contractors Ltd v Palmerston North City Council [1995] 1 NZLR 469 per Gallen J at 478-479 it can be found that the initial tender bidding was only considered as an invitation for treatment and contractual obligations were nowhere in that case. In this context, tender offer may be defined as public solicitation towards the designated shareholders so that they can reasonably tender stock for selling at a defined price during a specific time. However, in the current scenario, call for participation in the tender process cannot be considered as a valid offer. Nevertheless, without a valid offer and acceptance, no legal agreement can be enforced and that is extremely relevant in this case. 

On this ground, it can be further stated without ambiguity that there was no legal agreement between the University of Millennia and any of the selected suppliers. As evident, since legal agreement was absent in due course of the whole process of tender bidding, contract law breaching cannot be entitled by the university authority in this course. From the case scenario, it is evident that Plant Forever is already engaged with its stock to another party and thus, this supplier would not be able to entertain any further request of University of Millennia to go with their tender request. 

Rationally speaking, Millennia University is not holding a sufficient legal ground on behalf which they can approach legal remedies as per the Australian contract laws. In this context, it is worthy of being noted that failing to entertain due consideration in this tender process by the University of Millennia is responsive for scapegoating. Misunderstanding between the supplier and purchased is duly assigned with such misconduct of tender process. Thus, competitive tendering process, which is required by the university authority, would not be enforced any more due to stifled communication. 

Contractual position of Millennia University is totally menaced as evident from the case scenario. In this relevance, it can be argued that since Plant Forever is engaged with another purchaser, so this organization cannot be approached any more. Accordingly, university has to select between rests of the two. Since, Greenland’s tender is not reliable with respect to specific requirement of Millennia University, therefore, university can surely go with tender of Enviro whose tender was observed to be lowest and equipped with interesting features compliable with requirements of Millennia University.       

Question 2

From the case study, it can be noted that Footloose Pty Ltd. published their advertisement in the newspaper on 1 October about their footwear products. In this context, Footloose Pty Ltd. provided the information in the newspaper that for every special purchase there will be special discount for the buyers. In this regards company provided the fax and mobile number of responsible person related to the information about discount. From this perspective, it can be stated that Footloose Pty Ltd. needs to maintain the advertising and selling guide of Australia by which this company will be able to fulfill the requirement of different legal criteria related to advertisement. 

According to this guideline, it can be stated that in order to maintain normalcy of advertising process Footloose Pty Ltd. needs to provide authentic information related to discount according to the legal rule of Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Similar case can be seen in the case of TPG internet provider of Australian for misleading their customers by providing fake information in the advertisement. Hence, in this case Footloose Pty Ltd. needs to provide relevant and authentic information in their advertisement in order to prevent the chances of information breach.

According to the case study of 2nd October of  it can be observed that based on the advertisement of Footloose Pty Ltd. it can be stated that in this case this company needs to maintain the rules of Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012. It can help Footloose Pty Ltd. to maintain regulatory actions related to order and delivery process. Problem related to improper contract can introduce conflict among involved parties of the business and due to this reason, it can introduce barrier in the process of order and delivery. Similar barrier in contract can be seen in AGC (Advances) Ltd v McWhirter (1977) 1 BLR 9454 (Supreme Court of NSW). Due to the reason Footloose Pty Ltd. needs to maintain legal rules related to contract making.  

From the situational analysis of the following incidents ranging in between the date of 2. October to 10 October, it can be stated without ambiguity that a valid and legal contract formation is being approach by both the parties namely Footloose Pty Ltd and James’s Shoes. At the starting of their offering by Footloose, they have clearly demonstrated that per hundred pair of definite styles of shoes will require $2000. It is also been mentioned in that advertisement that for bulk ordering, discounts would be provided.  On this ground, it can be stated that Footloose has maintained all the regulations of Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012. James’s Shoes has approached this offer with an apprehension that since they are offering a bulk purchase from Footloose Pty Ltd, thus, they are eligible for accessing discounts at an optimized level. On this ground, James has communicated via fax with a proposal that they would purchase 2000 pairs of slingback sandals at the price of $30000 and this price has to include delivery charges as well as GST charges. However, the fax message being sent by Mr. James has argued for an advice from Ms Simone concerning this proposal. 

Ms Simone has approached James's Shoes on 6 October with a negotiation that they are accepting that price, but exempted of delivery charges. Ms Simone can definitely argue with a viewpoint that in the early advertisement it was been stated that per 100 pairs of shoes would cost $2000 and for bulk ordering, special discount will be given. According to this price, 2000 pair’s shoes are costing $40000 and hence, big discount of $10000 is already given. On this ground, Ms Simone can definitely negotiate with Mr. James for attracting extra delivery charges. On 8 October, Mr. James has forwarded a mail to Ms Simone by stating that his organization is forwarded in that agreement to meet all criteria being provisioned by Footloose. A copy of agree letter is being mailed on 10th October which is further ensuring that a legal contract is being made between these two parties. A communication of offer and acceptance is being followed in this case scenario and the electronic medium such as fax is evidently serving as the medium of communication. In this correlation, it can be entitled that Electronic Transactions Act 1999 would be playing crucial role in this legal and valid agreement. 

According to this act, electronic communication media are extremely valid under the Australian Commonwealth law and are accounted as instantaneous mode of communication. Evidently, the mail being forwarded by Mr. James to Ms Simone is included with acceptance of the offer in handwritten format along with handwritten signature. Letter copy of 8 October is being forwarded in that fax in the form of material document. Thus, on this ground, it can be argued that this agreement being established through electronic communication is a valid agreement that is fulfilling the requirement of a valid contract between two parties. Electronic Transactions Regulations 2000 is also influential in this context. 

In this connection, both the parties entering into this agreement can take sections 18 and section 41 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), schedule 2 into account. Mooney v Williams [1905] HCA 34, this case law may be instanced as well in this regard that would imply that James’s Shoes has provided a qualified acceptance of the offer of Footloose Pty Ltd with all their terms and conditions.