Andrew Robinson Goes to Taiwan

Firstly, we have to distinguish whether Jack makes an invitation to tender or an invitation to treat. According to Harvela Investments Ltd v. Royal Trust Co of Canada (CI) Ltd (1986), the usual analysis is that ‘an invitation to tender for a particular project is simply an invitation to treat. ' However, in the case of Harvela Investments Ltd, the invitation to tender is treated as an offer implicating legal obligations. I believe that Jack was making an invitation to treat rather than an invitation to tender, constituting an offer, for several reasons; firstly, the terms of the invitation are vague, with no specification of time for which acceptance of the ‘most competitive tender ' will remain open till; secondly, I infer that the lack

Andrew pays the Chinese workers 50% less than he did with the British workers and only 5% of the employees are in a trade union meaning that there is a less likely chance of a strike occurring. There is also a 40% number of staff that is temporary in the business which means that Andrew can choose to hire and lay off staff during peak periods and when they are not needed. They also have close links to recently graduated university students. The ROCE in China is 3.44% which is a lot better than that of the -9.24% in the UK. The asset turnover in the UK was 1.17 and in China it was 2 which mean that they are selling more of their products in China than they were in the UK. The gearing ratio in China is 50.17% which is average for the business and means that they are not in risk of when the interest rate rise they will lose a lot of revenue. The employees that had been working at Burkinshaw had worked there a long time before hand and had possessed unique skills that would allow them to be in a niche market of handmade pottery products that had been hand made to a high quality standard. In the UK the defective products was only 5.0% which was lower than China by 2.5%. The EU and USA markets had showed more percentage of sales growth in Burkinshaw’s Plc markets than China did in 2005-2010 which would have been a safe bet to go with rather than going to China.

The centralised organisational structure at Company K was primarily responsible for the issue that involved Dylan and the contract in various ways. Through the centralised organisational structure, decisions within the organisation run from the top to the bottom hence the Canadian branches in both Toronto and Vancouver unable to make decisions on their own but rely on instructions from Japan. Thus, all business activities had to be based on the headquarters in Japan for decision making. Therefore, the branch and operational managers in the respective Canadian and US branches lacked the autonomy to make decisions on their own. The lack of autonomy to make decisions was the primary reason that made Dylan on the contract issue.

In order to advise Billy in whether he is entitled to the extra $20,000 and a share in the farm, the key facts and relevant issues must be examined to determine if the elements of a legally binding contract exists. Whether there was an agreement and intention to create legal relations between the two will be used to determine whether Choy has breached a contract between the two. If a contract is found to

Jim doesn’t think he can agree to the union’s language on contracting out because as written it could severely limit the company’s flexibility. What language, if any, should Jim propose to attempt to resolve this issue? (10 marks)

In our recent negotiation, my partner Dave and I assumed the roles of Alan Hacker, a computer software developer, and Alan Hacker’s lawyer. Being the lawyer in the negotiation my objective was to avoid litigation with my client’s partner Stanley Star and to aid in the continuation of my client’s co-owned company HackerStar. In addition, I would assist Hacker in coming to an agreement that would be satisfying for him both personally and financially. I felt that Dave and I presented a reasonable argument on Hacker’s behalf and, since I was able to apply some of our class readings during the process, I was overall pleased with the outcome.

I will take a step by step analysis of the situation between Brenda and Albert. Firstly, I will advise Brenda and afterwards Albert. I will present the facts chronologically, as given to me, and advise on each issue individually with supporting evidence. I will refer to court cases and legislation such as Consumer Rights Act 2015, Sale of Goods Act 1979, The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 and Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. I will conclude by stating that despite the overwhelming evidence against Albert, supported by precedent court cases, there is no legal contract between the parties. I will provide Albert with legal advise assuming both business to business and business to consumer

As you know, eight months ago we entered into a contract with Citizen-Schwarz AG to create custom e-banking software. The agreed contract outlined the details of the arrangement, including on-schedule delivery and quality of the deliverables, strong communication between both parties, procedures for any changes in the system requirements, intellectual property rights, and dispute management procedures. Depending on our performance, we were projecting to gain an additional contract with C-S’s larger e-CRM order. Unfortunately, the original contract was filled with ambiguity from the start that increased the risk factor for both parties.

There was breach of faith by withholding information and not being upfront during the communication process between different parties. This situation was also caused by cultural differences like relationship building, “Guanxi”, emphasis on personal relationships versus factual-based legalistic approach, completely varied styles of doing business, and also

Can Andy sue Doug for breach of contract given the terms implied based on the facts of the case?

Contract Law Case Study Both the parties in the question have come to a problematic situation

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

Introduction: In this assignment I will go over a few legal terms in relation to contract law. I will also talk about a few precedents that help explain the law.

Based on what you read in the case report, what should XTech do in China?

There are two sides to the problem, the Chinese and the American, and Ray is the only one who can see both of them. The reasons for these two points of view are the socio-cultural differences that exist among countries. Culture is what defines a country and it can be composed of the language, values, religion, models of conducts, and beliefs, among others. There are many cultural differences between China and the U.S. China has a strong sense of hierarchy and respect towards figures of authority. For example, the vice president of a company might decline to participate in a very lucrative opportunity if it meant going over the president and his boss. This is a behavior that many Americans would find difficult to understand because their priority would be to make money. Another example is the role women play in business world. Even though the number of professional Chinese women has grown, men still think they are inferior, which is why when they see a woman succeeds in a position usually occupied by men; she earns great respect (Fang, 2008). This is actually something that other countries looking to enter Chinese market can use to their advantage. These and the many other cultural differences that exist between China and the U.S. explain why they see the problem in a very different way. Based on these differences, if Rocky River decides to pull out of the venture, it will be very difficult for the Chinese to trust the