Is The Mirror Image Rule?

Additionally, it is clarified that contracts falling within the scope of the Act shall contain certain provisions allowing the contracting officer to terminate, by written notice, the contractor’s right to proceed with the work should it be found that the wages being paid by the contractor are less than the prevailing wage. Should termination be necessary, the contractor can be held liable for any excess costs incurred by the Government to gain a new contract or otherwise have the work

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

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

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

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

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

Factors present that support this notion are the lack of a formal written agreement, the intention to create legal relations wasn’t present, and insufficient consideration.

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

The doctrine of consideration is one of the most established doctrines within the common law of contract. This essay will discuss the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration. It will shed light on the rules of consideration, ways to avoid consideration, application of the rules in the specific circumstance of performance of an existing duty in cases. Evidently an alteration to the rules and practices would be displayed. Courts today need to make a distinction between everyday social agreements and legally binding contracts, this is where the doctrine of consideration manifests. This case introduces the practical benefit rule needed for consideration however, this case did not alter set legislation formed from the case Stilk v Myric[1809]. As it was held in the Court of Appeal and not seen or upheld by the House of Lords.

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

Sometimes the nature of an agreement clearly determines that there was no intention to be legally bound. In the case of domestic agreements, there is a general presumption that the parties do not intend to be legally bound, though this can be rebutted.

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

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.

Further to case Dunlop v Higgins[3], is in same situation, Dunlop send to offer to Higgins. In the communication delay time, Dunlop’s good prices have increased. Higgins has posted the letter of acceptance when he received the offer from Dunlop. Dunlop’s won’t to supply the goods to Higgins with old prices. By Postal Acceptance Rule, hence Dunlop must comply with their offer supply the goods to Higgins with old prices.

-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.