Is The Mirror Image Rule?

PURPOSE. This document provides historical information regarding the Davis-Bacon Act and present day implications of the Act. Davis-Bacon, established in 1931, sets a wage requirement for all construction contracts over $2,000 that are either partially or fully supported with government funds. While the Act has been controversial for many years, efforts to repeal the Act completely or to increase the dollar-value threshold have failed. Some argue that the Act increases cost to Government construction contracts and may reduce competition or eliminate it completely for small businesses (CBO, 1983). Regardless, under FAR 22.404, we are responsible for ensuring that the requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act are enforced and incorporated into our solicitations and contracts.

The mirror image rule under the common law provides that an offer by the offeror must be accepted precisely the same and without any modifications by the offeree in order to constitute a valid acceptance. Whereas, under the Uniform Commercial Code, an acceptance that does not match the terms of the offer is still considered valid for formation of a contract so long as the material terms of the original offer are agreed

Privity of Contract is the relationship that exists between the promisor and the promise of a contract (Miller, 2016). Subcontractors

1) What are the advantages and disadvantages of the particular sub-contracting system in this case?

Over the years the construction industry has developed a reputation for shady deals and untrustworthiness. Contractors specifically are the root cause of the mistrust between the industry and the public. When it comes to the relationships between contractors and subcontractors though there is still a mistrust even though both sides share the same unfavorable reputation. Often times contractors bully subcontractors into signing contracts that put them in very unfavorable positions. And after that subcontractors bully sub-subcontractors into signing equally unfavorable sub-contracts. However, not all contracts are terrible, what makes them so one sided are specific clauses that are inserted in an attempt to transfer responsibilities from the contractor to the sub and sub-subcontractors. Conditional payment and oversight responsibility are a couple of the types of clauses that attempt to do such work. Another clause in construction contracts attempts to protect the contractor and owner from each other with regard to change orders, it is included to force each party to put changes into writing. For the most part, no set of plans is perfect so inevitably changes must be made. So contractors and owners find themselves in yet another situation where both sides have the opportunity to be as unsavory as they can be. As the industry progresses into the future, many additional contract clauses will pop up. They will attempt to shift more responsibility and blame off the

Covered by the accepted rules, it is a necessity that the printed composition, offer and acceptance, make a Mirror Image of one another for an agreement to happen. If there exists dissimilar agreements and circumstances, indifferent of their relevance, there would exist no deal. Even though the Mirror Image rule had the benefit of being understandable and not difficult to put into use, it didn 't echo the facts of the current era commercial business. So in Article Two of the UCC, that is relevant to business dealings, the Mirror Image rule was interchanged by UCC 2-207. That arrangement acknowledges that an agreement can happen still where the proposal and agreement weren 't exact. Covered by UCC 2-207, all exact and appropriate verbalization of agreement will shape a deal despite of if it includes unlike conditions - except when agreement is purposely created dependent on acknowledgement to the extra or contrasting circumstances. Additionally, although the persons ' arrangements are so entirely different that no composed agreement is brought into existence, UCC 2-207(3) understands that the individuals ' behavior can however produce an agreement. UCC 2-207 depicts an

In Williams v Roffey Brothers & Nichols (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1, the defendants were building contractors who entered into a building contract to refurbish a block of flats. The plaintiffs in the case were subcontracted to carry out the work for the sum of £20,000. There was an implied term in the contract that the plaintiff would receive interim payments for the work carried out. The plaintiff received £16,000 for work carried out, which amounted to 80% of the contract price. However, more than 20% of the work remained because the plaintiff had priced the work too low. As a result of realizing the plaintiff’s financial difficulties, and because they were bound by a penalty clause to complete the works on time, the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff an extra £10,300 to complete the work on time. This figure was divided as £575 per flat to ensure that there were no disruptions to the work. The defendant made only one further payment of £1500 after the plaintiff completed eight more flats. The plaintiff thereafter ceased working and brought an action for the extra money which amounted to £10,847 but the defendants argued that there was no obligation on them to pay the additional £10,300 because the promise to pay the extra money was not supported by sufficient consideration and the plaintiff was already under a pre-existing contractual duty to carry out the works. It

Jim Bowie accepted David Crockett’s bid to build a house for $166,000. Having bid a certain amount David Crockett has to keep building the home he is required to even if there was an increase of $15,000 in materials and fuel. Consideration exists in two events if 1.) something of legal value must be given in exchange for the promise, which is a promise to do something that one has no prior legal duty to do and 2.) there must be a bargained for exchange. In this case, rule number one would be applied because Crockett was already required to build a home for $166,00 therefore there is no consideration to pay him the extra $15,000. The preexisting duty rule also states that “a promise to do what one what one already has a legal duty to do does

Mark had promised to subdivide his land and transfer the ownership of the cottage you were living in as a tenant to your name, and in effect encouraged you to disregard seeking a settlement with Pat as well as substantially improve his cottage. This thus encouraged an induced assumption to be made which you relied upon. Mark did not do enough to prevent your impending detriment from occurring regardless of his initial knowledge and intention made. We will therefore use these factors to our advantage and base the cause of action and arguments made on these.

The Postal Acceptance Rule does not apply in every case. Even if the negotiating parties involved consider the postal service is an acceptable means of communication. According to Byrne v. Van Tienhoven[4], the Postal Acceptance Rule cannot accept offeror revocation their posted acceptance. In this case, Van Tienhoven had been sent out the acceptance to Byrne. But Van Tienhoven withdrawal offer and sent out the new one to Byrne before Byrne received the old offer. The

(c) The Contractor must assert its right to an adjustment under this clause within 30 days from the date of receipt of

The case of Balfour v Balfour (1919) presents a scenario in which the general presumption is upheld. In this case a husband promised to pay his wife a monthly maintenance allowance of £30 while he was away. Later, the couple decided to separate and the husband refused to pay the allowance. It is important here to accentuate the fact that the husband and wife were in good relations at the time the husband made the promise. The Court of Appeal determined that there was no intention to create legal relations and consequently there was no valid contract as Atkin LJ stated that it was a ‘family matter’.

It can be concluded that the elements of intention and consideration has been met for there to be an enforceable contract between Kate and the travel agency.

• Canceling, terminating, or suspending the contract, or any portion thereof, for failure of the contractor or

-It is unclear whether the two had initially signed a contract to stipulate the conditions of payment; still, it is speculated that the understanding was verbal.