Posted: May 16th, 2022

Offer and Acceptance

Offer and Acceptance
For each assignment in business law, students should utilize the IRAC method. Introduce the concepts from a particular week, state the Rule of law making sure to include all elements of any law, Analyze the problem using both the facts of the case and the rule of law and finally make a Conclusion on the problem that week.
Clean Machines Company makes washing machines. Over the phone, Clean offers to sell Dealers Appliance Outlet one hundred model EZ2000 washers at a price of $150 per unit. Clean says that it will keep the offer open for ninety days. In that same call, Dealers responds that within two or three weeks it will decide whether to accept. One week later, Clean faxes, and Dealer receives, notice that the offer is withdrawn. Dealer immediately phones Clean to accept the $150-per-unit offer. When Clean refuses to deliver at that price, Dealer files a suit. Clean asserts, first, that there is no contract and, second, that if there is a contract, it is unenforceable. Assignment help – Discuss Clean’s assertions.
You should complete this assignment in a 500 traditional paper.

Offer and Acceptance
Clean Machines Company makes washing machines. Over the phone, Clean offers to sell Dealers Appliance Outlet one hundred model EZ2000 washers at a price of $150 per unit. Clean says that it will keep the offer open for ninety days. In that same call, Dealers responds that within two or three weeks it will decide whether to accept. One week later, Clean faxes, and Dealer receives, notice that the offer is withdrawn. Dealer immediately phones Clean to accept the $150-per-unit offer. When Clean refuses to deliver at that price, Dealer files a suit. Clean asserts, first, that there is no contract and, second, that if there is a contract, it is unenforceable. Assignment help – Discuss Clean’s assertions.
The scenario provided involves a case that is concerned with two problems. The first problem is about the condition under which an offer can be revoked, and the second problem is the existence of a breach of a non-written contract. The solution to the case scenario provided needs one to understand the main rule of laws that should be considered when handling the case. There is two rule of law under the Uniform Commercial Code that can be applied in the case. The first law is Uniform Commercial Code § 2-205, which constitutes the firm offers. According to the firm offers law of the Uniform Commercial Code, an offer by a merchant for buying or selling goods should be provided in a written and signed providing assurance by its terms that the offer would be held open is not revocable, for lack of consideration, during the time stated in the offer (Legal Information Institute, 2012). The law also states that the in no event should such period of irrevocability exceed three months. However, the terms of assurance of the form provided by the offeree must be signed separately by the offeror. The second law to be applied is the Uniform Commercial Code § 2-201 that provides formal requirements for the Statute of Frauds.
In some cases, contracts are made orally between parties and considered valid and enforceable. However, according to the Uniform Commercial Code under the model of the Statue of Frauds, certain contracts are only valid and enforceable if written and signed by parties. Such contracts include those that involve goods worth $500 or more, leases for goods worth $1,000 or more, and agreements that create a security interest in products that do not have the creator.
Therefore, regarding the applied rule of law, Clean’s contention that there is no contract between it and the Dealer is considered to be correct. Since the offer was not irrevocable Clean as the offeror had the right to revoke the offer at any time before Dealer acceptance without liability. Dealer does not have any proof to show that the proposal was considered irrevocable under the UCC 2-205. Under UCC 2-205, Dealer did not consider the offer to be kept open by not creating considerations that would have made the offer irrevocable. There was no assurance from Clean in a written and signed form that the offer being provided would stand for ninety days. Therefore, since the assurance was made orally, the withdrawal of the offer by Clean before Dealer’s acceptance terminated the offer, hence no contract was formed.
The contention of Clean that the offer is unenforceable even if the contract was made is also correct. According to the Uniform Commercial Code’s Statue of Frauds, any contract of sales that involve goods worth $500 or must be provided in a written and signed form as an assurance to provide proof to Clean contention. The offer of Clean to Dealer was to sell one hundred models EZ2000 washers at $150 per unit, which totals a price of $15,000 falling under the UCC’s Statute of Frauds. The contract in the case was not written, nor is there any writing indicating that there was an oral contract between the parties. Also, the exceptions required by the Statue of Fraud do not exist. Therefore, even if Dealer were able to provide proof of the existence of oral contract having been made with Clean, the agreement would not still be enforceable against the applicable law of the Statue of Frauds.
References
Legal Information Institute, (2012). Uniform Commercial Code. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Offer and Acceptance