The Position Of Marble Plc

2153 Words9 Pages
Introduction This paper discusses the positions of Marble Plc (Marble) in two cases with Redd Ltd (Redd) and Gearight Ltd (Gearight), following issues arisen from the procurement and works of a demolition package. It considers the legal positions and discusses the potential liabilities Marble may face in claims against Gearight and Redd. The areas of law in question are first determined and the principles explained. Analysis of the facts and principles of the two cases using existing case law is then introduced, and advice is given to Marble of their legal positions. Areas of Law to Discuss In the cases of Marble v Redd, and Marble v Gearight, there is evidence to consider the following legal principles: - Contract Law: Elliot…show more content…
For example, payment for, and the construction of a building. - Offer & Acceptance: To come to an agreement, offer and acceptance are required, to begin to determine if a legally binding contract has been formed. A contract requires “Offer & Acceptance, Valuable Consideration, Intention and capacity” explain Uher & Davenport (2002). The offeror must offer something of value to which an offeree may then accept. - Invitation to Treat: Described by Macantile (2012) as “expression of willingness to negotiate”, an offeror is not bound to an agreement from an invitation to treat. For example, “the display of goods; the advertisement of a price; and an invitation for tenders” identify some types of invitation to treat. This recognises an opportunity to negotiate, where the “inviter can change his or her mind,” before finally accepting, describes Macantile (2012). - Rejection: A clear refusal of terms; simply put by Moles (2014) A rejection is “a termination of offers, explicitly or by counter offer”. - Counter Offer: A counter offer occurs when the offeree replies to the offeror with an adjustment to the originally or previously offered terms as ruled by Lord Langdale in the case of Hyde v Wrench (1840) where the offeree “responded to an offer by making an offer on different terms” (e-lawresources, 2014). In addition, Moles (2014) states, “A counter offer kills the original offer”; however “A mere enquiry” as demonstrated in Stephenson Jacques & Co v
Open Document