• My Account
  • solution


    LAW AND CONTRACT Assignment Help

    LAW AND CONTRACT Assignment Help


    Task 1 (PAC 2.1 and 2.2)
    In case of Butler Machine Tool v. Ex-Cell-O Corp 1979 UK, their lies an essence of modern ways of doing business.  As per the case, both buyer and seller dealt with each other according to the standard form for doing a business that is thinking about the details of the transaction unless something uncertain takes place. That is in case of any uncertainty, each appeal of their forms tries to settle the matter in a legal manner (Azhar, 2017). The case of Butler Machine Tool v. Ex-Cell-O Corp 1979 UK, Ex-Cell-O wished to purchase a machine from Butler and there were required communication made for the quotation of £75,535 and their standard terms of sales. However, throughout their legal communication emphasis was made in terms of a price variation clause and a term that seller's term, would prevail over any of the submitted terms by the purchaser. There was a clear disagreement made by the purchaser for the consideration of price variation clause. However, there was a slip being sent to the Butler for his signature expecting the slip to be returned back to the Ex-Cell-O. The slip also underpinned the fact of accepting the contract as per the aid terms and conditions. Thus, creating a communication misunderstanding, Butler delivered the machinery with the extra demanded price variation clause of £2,893 (E-lawresources.co.uk, 1979).

    Task 2 (PAC 2.1 and 2.2)
    As per the mentioned case situation, the No problem Ltd agreed to install some air-conditioning in the accounts office of CM. The agreement was made £50,000, however, the workers walked out last month leaving the job half completed. The reason for leaving the job incomplete has been stated for the refusal made by the CM for the extra £20,000 along with the £50,000. In addition to the discussion, the above scenario falls under the ‘Breach of Contract’. However, the Breach of Contract highlights the situation where one party breaks in the case by not meeting the held contract and its conditions (McDermott, 2017).

    In order to support the above case scenario, The ‘No problem Ltd’, conducted an Acceptance of partial performance. The acceptance of partial performance is the condition where one party freely agree to accept partial performance and then a sum is payable for the work completed (Schmidt and Silkens, 2015). The above conclusion can be supported by the case of ‘Sumpter v Hedges (1898)’, that marks a clear agreement to build two houses and stables for the defendant. In this case, the claimant commenced performance and ran out of money leading to leave the job in an incomplete situation. Therefore, the claimant sought to recover £333 as the value of work he had completed.  The defendant thereby accepted the partial performance and paid for the partial completion of the tasks (E-lawresources.co.uk, 1898).

    Though there was no such contract set among the CM and the No problem Ltd, the working style, and condition of the company reflects the clause of accepting the partial performance. Therefore, the CM has been further advised to claim compensation for all the aggravation he made for installing the air conditioners in the office. As No problem Ltd, do not hold any legal contract for starting their work under acceptance of partial performance, the CM is fully liable to claim for the required compensation. Therefore, from the above-held discussion, another fact of Breach in a contract has been also identified when the situation is viewed from the perspective of the CM (Carter et al. 2017). As he agreed to get the work completed within £50,000, he already made his future planning as per the decision of £50,000 only. However, the No problem Ltd was also responsible to clarify their aspects of demanding for an extra sum of £20,000 along with clarifying their individual statement if the extra amount is not paid. As no such action took place, the CM is further advised to claim the needful compensation for the aggravation and the missed contracts. Another advice that can be marked form the above case scenario deals with the compulsion which the CM can give to No Problem Ltd, for completing their work in the same amount as decided before. In addition to the discussion, the very act of working under the legal authority must be maintained and all the further procedures are recommended to be conducted under the guidance of lawyers, so that no future misunderstanding gains scope to rise and extend the completion of the remaining work to a greater extent (Markovits and Schwartz, 2016).   

    Task 3 (PAC 2.1 and 2.2)
    In order to work with industries practices or phrases common causes related to construction contracts within the JCT SBC/Q 2015 is recommended for the responsible person (Mindy et al. 2016). The following are the discussion marked for common clauses within the construction contract. 
    A construction project always requires a significant commitment from both parties; however, terminating for an unreasonable fact is not liable at all. Both contractor and employer are forbidden from terminating the contract unreasonably or vexatiously. In case of vexatious termination, the court implies an ulterior motive to oppress or annoy the victim. The above statement can be supported by the case study of Reinwood Ltd v L Brown & Sons Ltd (2007) that justifies how a reasonable party would act in the incurred circumstances. 
    Another factor under termination relates to the consideration of common law termination (Hughes, et al. 2015). That is, the contractual JCT termination states to be without prejudice to any other rights and remedies. The above tends to preserve a party’s common law right in order to accept a repudiatory breach of conduct and further terminate the contract. 

    The selection of right ground for termination is also essential. That is if one party becomes formally insolvent chance of getting termination is highly possible. In addition to the procedure of termination, the provision of proper notice of termination is also required in order address stated notices under contract particulars. Therefore, termination of building a contract is a serious step for the CM as termination provides fertile ground for disputes (Corporate.jctltd.co.uk, 2016). The suitable JCT provisions are detailed and prescriptive and further help to avoid making of difficult situations.
    Interim payments and ‘pay less’ notices
    The general concept set for payments is the transfer between parties of some form of value such as services, assets or funds in an agreed exchange (Atkinson, 2015). However, the most common payment involves money although it can take the form of stock issues or other such benefits. In a construction industry, payment can be the source of great controversial deals. The contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers face considerable risk in situations where pricing construction projects and optimistic piercings can quickly cause cash flow issues. In addition to the discussion, the situation where the paying party wished to pay less than the notified sum, the occurrence of pay less notice is said to be issued no later than the prescribed period before the final date for payment (El-adaway, et al. 2017). A payless notice never requires to set out all the grounds for paying less but requires to set out the sum of paying the party to be considered as the dues for the left overpayments.
    On the other hand, an interim payment deals with the payment notices that must be issued by the CM within 5 days of the due date. However, in a case where the CM falls to issue an interim certificate or issues a late certificate, the contractor may give a default payment notice to the CM stating the sum due on the due date (Chappell and Dunn, 2015). A reference from the case ISG Construction Ltd v Seevic College (2014) can be cited for clarifying the understanding between an interim and pay less notice.
    Practical completion, lateness, adjustment of the completion date, liquidated damages and defects
    Practical completion under JCT SBC/Q 2015 has not been mentioned in a specified manner to suit the building contracts, however, the works are generally considered to be practically complete in the absence of outstanding defects and building for an intended usage (Brook, 2016). Under practical completion, the contractor has no exclusive possession of the site. Moreover, the obligation to assure the works is also ended in respect of the rectification period.

    In a construction contract, there lies an equal contribution of an employer and the contractor to cause delay to construction contracts. As for instance, the employers may delay by changing the designs of the buildings, whereas, the contractors may cause the delay for the lack of efficiency in their planning. Moreover, lateness being caused due to events as adverse weather also accounts under JCT (Chappell, 2017). There are some of the key changes to the provision of time in the current JCT Standard Building Contract with Quantities (SBC/Q).
    Under the clause of 2.4, the contractor stays responsible to execute his work diligently and on a regular basis, this further result to complete the same on or before the relevant Completion Date. In order to adjust the completion date, the delays will be calculated from the initial date of the event when the contractor fails to complete the work within the completion date. Therefore, a competition date can be referred to reflect the completion of the event as a whole (Adriaanse, 2016).

    Another common clause that must be marked by the CM in the construction contract is the construction defects. Construction defects in courts have been recognised as a primary fall into design, material, workmanship and specification categories. The JCT SBC/Q Section 2 marks the contractor's obligations and liabilities for defects under the contract explicitly. However, liquidated damages are the sum of money being specified as the total amount of compensation that should be received by an aggrieved party. Under this contract actions or failures to act constitute breach also get established (Williams, 2015). The Lord briefly considered a clarifying position of the extension of time that has been given after the withholding notice was served to the parties. As the decision to deduct liquidated damages relate the employers more, it is unlikely to work on the notice serving practices. That is, if the employer decided to deduct the damages, the matter would simply be allowed to rest. The wording seems to suggest that liquidated damages may get deducted as per the provided written requirements to be served before the date of the final certificate.