Local Lawsuit Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Local Lawsuit - duty assignment ExampleThis information was relayed to the fellowships manager via a short message using a phone. The mess haller though did non categorically state the mode in which he expected a response from the familiarity. On receiving the feedback from the monger, the company manager decided to respond to the offer by a government agency of e-mail. In his email, he indicated that the stated $550 amount was too high and that since the company needed 10 horses, he would consider paying $500 for each of the horses. This mail was also accompanied by instruction communicate the dealer that if the company does not hear from them by Friday, then the company will consider the deal make and will process paying for the 10 horses (Berenson, 2005). When Friday reached, the company processed the payments, but later tack together out that the dealer had sold the horses to another third party. The company was disappointed on the grounds that the dealer had breached t he contract and in that regard filed a suit in a court to reverse the deed made between the dealer and the other party. The dealer on the other hand insisted that he did not reach any contract since he had not received any chat from the company and considered that the company withdrew from the deal. What the Management Would Have Done To Curb the Lawsuit Scenario from A Rising The management in this position ought to have been awargon of the way a contract should be communicated this is in the sense that if a chat from an offeror is made in a particular pattern, it is prudent then that any response to the communication is made in the same way unless otherwise stated by the offeror. This is because ordinarily in contracts, when a communication is done using a different way other than that used by the offeror, then the offeror may not be liable for any miscommunication that may arise due to naming of a different rule. The management decided to use an alternative method to commun icate back without the companionship of the offeror. They ought to have observed this before communicating using the email. Again, in contracts, silence in not considered as a way of acceptance. It can only serve as a way of acceptance if in that respect has been such earlier communication between the two and it is in their knowledge. This is accentuated by the fact that communication is done via the same means used by the offeror. Given that there was no such history between the two, it was wrong for the companys management to construe that their communication was heeded to by the offeror. The management ought to have taken the precautionary measures of making communication via the same means. Making replies to communication should be informed by the method that has been used by the other partner, this is to the extent that if the same communication is done using another method, chances are that the intended recipient may not access on specific time bound because of many reason s. This may make the partner misconstrue that the information is accepted as in the case of the company discussed in this paper. Legally, the offeror is required to unequivocally state the mode of communication to avoid any communication that will deviate from the initial means of communication. This is the issue witnessed in this case where the offeror makes an offer and does not dictate the mode of relaying acceptance enabling the offeree to choose mail - this is what led to misconstrued communication and