Due date: Friday, 6 April 2018 11-59 PM IN TURNITIN
Length: 1500 words (+/- 10%), correctly referenced
Question 1 15 Marks
The University of Millennia called for tenders for supplies of green seed for its surrounds, with a closing date of 1 June.
The following tenders were submitted:
• Greenland hand-delivered its tender on 29 May, which went into the tender box.
• Enviro posted its tender on 15 May. This letter was received by the University on 17 May, but, by being submitted so early, one of the administrative assistants filed it with the intention of later putting it in the box when she was properly organised.
• Plant Forever posted its tender on 30 May. This letter arrived on 2 June but nevertheless was put into the tender box.
It transpired that only two of the tenders were considered by the relevant administrative officials of the University. Although the tender by Enviro was the lowest and contained the most attractive features, the administrative assistant forgot where she had filed it and did not find it again until a week after the decision was made.
Greenland's tender was the next lowest, but because of rumours about its unreliability, the University awarded the contract to Plant Forever. The University posted a letter to Plant Forever advising that its tender was successful. Unfortunately, this letter never reached Plant Forever because it was destroyed by a disgruntled postal worker who had just been made redundant. Since it had not heard from the University, Plant Forever instead committed its full stock of seed to another contract with a regional council.
The University became aware of the full situation concerning the tender by Enviro and the position in which Plant Forever now finds itself. It seeks advice concerning its contractual position in relation to all three tenders.
On 1 October Footloose Pty Ltd placed the following notice in the Daily News newspaper: Special Shoes Special Discounts
Footloose Pty Ltd is awaiting the delivery of the latest summer collection shoes from Italy. Styles include the new slingback sandals and wedge heels. Prices start at $2000 per hundred pairs (certain styles only); big discounts may be negotiated for bulk orders. All inquiries to Ms Simone, Sales Manager, on 1400 765 432 or by fax on 06 9234 567.
On 2 October Famous Footwear sent the following fax to Ms Simone: We accept your offer in the Daily News.
We wish to order 500 pairs at $2000 per hundred. Details on delivery to follow.
On 4 October James, the owner of shoe retailer James's Shoes, which had several regional stores throughout Australia, sent the following fax to Ms Simone at Footloose:
We refer to your notice in the Daily News and would like to purchase 2000 pairs of slingback sandals. Our best price is $30,000 including GST and delivery. Please advise.
On 6 October Ms Simone sent the following fax to James: Footloose will sell 2000 pairs of slingback sandals for $30,000, excluding delivery. Payment by cash or bank cheque is due on delivery. Please advise.
James immediately wrote the following letter to Ms Simone, which was mailed on 8 October: We refer to your fax of 6 October and are prepared to meet you on those terms. Please let me know the earliest delivery date.
On 10 October Ms Simone telephoned James. After a short discussion James faxed Ms Simone a copy of the letter of 8 October. The parties agreed that James's Shoes would take delivery of the sandals from Footloose's Sydney warehouse on 1 November.
Referring to relevant case law and giving reasons for your propositions, discuss the legal effect of each of the forms of correspondence between Footloose, Famous Footwear and James's Shoes that took place between 1 October and 10 October.
In this discussion, two different cases regarding the litigation advice are discussed to solve the legal issues. Primarily the solution of the case of the University of Millennia regarding the issue of organizing the tender of suppliers of green seed will be discussed in this discussion. On the other hand, the strategy of Footloose Pty Ltd is to be analysed in relation to avoid judicial actions against the company.
From the case study, it is clarified that the University of Millenia had called for the tenders for supplies of green seed mentioning the closing date 1st June. It can also be informed that three companies showed interest in the matter of getting the tender such as Greenland, Enviro and Plant Forever and send their response letter. Primarily the Enviro's letter had been selected for the tender as the cost of the tender project is lowest. Apart from that, the features which were mentioned in the letter are attractive but for the negligence of the administrative assistant, the letter is lost (Warner & McAdam, 2017). On the other hand, Greenland’s tender was second lowest, but the management was not assured about their actual existing. For this reason the rest of the competitors, Plant forever was selected for providing the tender. However, a postal worker destroyed the response letter, which was sent to the Plant forever. In the meantime, the Plant forever went for a different contact with regional council.
Under such circumstances, it can be said that the objective of arrangement of tender can be gone in vain in terms of not responding properly or the reason of communication gap. From the point of view of management of University of Millenia, it can be said that the management can arrange meeting to take decision about the issue what to do. It can be said that the management of the University can take decision to provide the tender to the Enviro. In relation to that, the management of the company can mention in the letter about the actual incident about the matter of misplacing the letter of the Enviro by the administrative assistant. In connection to that, the management can admit their mistake in the letter and requesting them to further send the letter of the tender. It can be said that the management of the Enviro may not take this lightly
and can take judicial steps. The management of the University is required to take necessary actions to proof that the mistake was not done intentionally. In addition to that, if the management intends to overlook the matter, they would not send the letter of resending the tender.
On the other hand it can be said that if the management of the Greenland and Plant Forever will charge to the management of the university about the matter of not sending the resend offer letter after getting information, the management can handle the issue easily. Management of the University can mention the matter that the fault of keeping the application was done by the management of the University. The management of Enviro is not responsible from any ground. Hence, the management of the University can take the decision. Furthermore, the management of the University can charge the management of Greenland in terms of justifying their authentication by the law of Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (Costa, Douglas, Hamblin, Ramsay, & Shircore, 2015). According to the providing information of the case study it can be said that the management of Greenland cannot prove themselves innocent. It can also be added that the management of University can bring the charge on the management of the Greenland about defamation.
On the other hand, the management of Plant Forever can blame the management of the University for not sending the news of selecting them. For this reason, the management can send a formal letter to the management of the Plant Forever and mention the truth that the postal department is responsible for the original fault. The management can also mention that the company send their full stock of seed to another contact of the regional council. Management can also mention that knowing the information the management does not send the invitation letter to them to contest in the tender. Apart from that, it is also to be added that the management does not consider that they had done any communication fault in this matter as the postal employee who had done the blunder intentionally had done the fault. The management of the University can take judicial action regarding the matter of miscommunication against the postal department. In this regard, the management of the University can complain against the postal department and if possible the particular employee of the postal department in the Postal industry ombudsman (Alden, & Gordon, 2017).
However, the management of the University can provide the opportunity to the Plant Forever to contest the tender. It can be said that if the management of the Plant Forever will agree with the decision of the management of the company, the management of the University is needed to arrange tender between the Enviro and Plant Forever. On the contrary, if the management of the Plant Forever will reject the proposal, take a concern of law-year, the management of the University can provide the tender to the Enviro.
From the case study of wholesaler shoe company, Footloose Ply Ltd, it is clarified that the management of the company takes the decision to deliver the latest summer collection shoes including new slingback sandals and wedge heels from Italy. It is also mentioned in the advertisement that the price of the shoes is started from 2000 dollar per hundred. It can be said that the management of the Footloose Pty Ltd provides the advertisement in the newspaper "Daily News". After noticing the advertisement on the paper of 1st October, the management of the Famous Footwear had sent the response on 2nd October demanding the order of 500 pairs of shoes. On the 4th October the owner of the retailer James's shoes, James sent a fax to the Ms Simone, Sales manager of the Footloose Pty Ltd mentioning that his company is intended to purchase 2000 pairs of the slingback sandals for 30,000 dollars including G.S.T and delivery. 6th October, Sales manager of the Footloose Pty Ltd. had sent the approvement letter of selling 2000 pair of shoes to the James's shoes on one condition except for the cost of delivery. It can be added that the owner of the James shoe stops bargaining and agree to pay the delivery charge. After that the deal is final and the shoes are purchased and the sandals are sent to the Footloose Sydney warehouses.
Now, after seeing the case study, a question is generated that the Footloose Pty Ltd was stuck to the issue of fixing the cost of per hundred pairs 2000 dollar. Famous Footwear offers to the Footloose Ply Ltd. to purchase 500 pairs at $ 2000 dollar, which is according to the condition of Footloose Ply Ltd. On the other hand, James's shoes offer 30,000 dollars for 2000 pairs of shoes. According to the advertisement of the Footloose Pty Ltd., the price of the sandals should be 40000 dollars. However, the management of the Footloose Pvt Ltd. fixed the price on 30,000 dollars only. It means the management lose near about 10000 million dollars. On the contrary, it can be said that in the duration of 1st October to 4th October except for James shoes and the Famous Footwear, no such companies had gone for the purchasing of shoes. In relation to that, it can be said that though the Famous Footwear provided the purchasing amount according to the demand of the Footloose Pty Ltd., but their quantity of the purchasing material is not enough in the comparison of James's shoes. On the other hand, though the management of the James shoe's bargains to reduce the price of the product, yet they got the priority to the management of the Footloose Pvt Ltd. for buying more materials, which can reduce the sales risk of the selling company.
On the other hand, from the ethical issue, it can be said that the management of the Famous Footwear made contact to the management of the Footloose Pty Ltd. primarily, so the company is liable to make the decision in favour of the Famous Footwear (Morse & Deutsch, 2016). It can also be added that after knowing the incident or based on the demand of first knocking the management of Famous Footwear may take judicial actions against Footloose Pty Ltd. However, the management of the company Footloose Pty Ltd, can get clean cheat as they did not mention that the special discounts would not be provided in terms of first come first serve basis. In addition to that, if the management of Famous Footwear focuses on the issue of providing cost discount, the management of Footloose Pty Ltd. can show that in the advertisement it was mentioned that big discounts may be negotiated for the bulk orders. On the other hand, it can be said that the GST and the delivering issues were the internal issues of Footwear Pty Ltd and James shoes, it will not be the legal issue (Crane & Matten, 2016).
In this study, the litigation issues regarding the two different cases have been discussed regarding the issue of taking the decision on the providing tender and selecting the selling party based on the case study of Footloose Pvt Ltd. and the University of Millennia.