On the 14th of July 2007, Wivenhoe Cycles Ltd wrote to Easy-Transport plc of London to provide a feasible advice on the lowest price for 100 units of Raleigh bicycles to be delivered on the 1st of September 2007. It so happened that Easy-Transport plc of London reverted the following day, to Wivenhoe Cycles Ltd confirming that their lowest and final price for 100 units of Raleigh bicycles was going to agreed at £10 000. In this letter which was considered a letter similar to that of an offer letter, Easy-Transport plc of London enclosed their standard terms and conditions. The terms and conditions consisted of clause 6 concerning their right to charge 20% beyond the quoted price for the merchandise. In the letter of acceptance sent on 19th July 2007, Wivenhoe Cycles Ltd ordered 100 units of Raleigh bicycles for the price of £10 000 but enclosed as well their standards terms and conditions with a tear off acknowledgment slip to be signed and returned to them. This signed acknowledgement slip which was returned by the vendor was vital for Wivenhoe Cycles Ltd as it was their proof of the agreement which was in progress.
[...] It was required by Wivenhoe Cycles Ltd that Easy-Transport would sign it and send it back to them. But in their letter of response, Easy-Transport did not send the tear-off acknowledgment slip. We can then argue that a few conditions of the Classical Model of Contract Law are not respected in this case. First, it's unclear here whether Easy-Transport plc of London had an intention to create legal relations with Wivenhoe Cycles Ltd or not. They wanted to conclude a contract with Wivenhoe Cycles Ltd but did not specify why they did not send the tear-off acknowledgment slip and just assumed that the contract would be on their terms and conditions by sending them again. [...]
[...] Easy-Transport plc of London on their letter of response sent on 22nd July 2007 did not return the tear-off acknowledgment slip and once again enclosed their all terms and conditions. This letter was never received by Wivenhoe Cycles Ltd. On the 1st September 2007, Easy- Transport plc of London delivered the 100 units of Raleigh bicycles to Wivenhoe Cycles Ltd and now charges OOO because of the 20% extra reflecting additional cost What legal arguments can Easy-Transport plc of London of London make to support its position? [...]
[...] The contract should then be on Easy-Transport plc of London's terms and conditions in addition with Wivenhoe Cycles Ltd's and Clause 6 of Easy-Transport plc of London's terms and conditions is valid. It would therefore mean that Easy-Transport plc of London has the right to charge for the merchandise they delivered. This position is supported by the case B.R.S v. Arthur V. Crutchley Ltd in which the “last shot doctrine” is developed. G.H. Treitel defines the “last shot doctrine”: “where conflicted communications are exchanged, each is a counter-offer so that if a contract results at all (e.g. [...]
[...] According to this case, and even though according the “last shot doctrine” the last one who sends their terms and conditions are to be respected in the contract, Easy-Transport plc of London implicitly accepted Wivenhoe Cycles Ltd's terms and conditions by delivering the bicycles. The merchandise should then be on a “total and final cost” of Third of all, we can refer to Butler Machine Tool Co. Ltd v. Ex-Cell-O Corporation Ltd case This case is very similar to the case we treat but in the exception that in Machine Tool Co. [...]
[...] We can now focus on Easy-Transport plc of London‘s argument saying that the price of the bicycles should be In this case, there is clearly a “battle of the forms” as both parties sent there conditions to be considered as the only ones to be respected in order to proceed with the contract. But by delivering the merchandise 100 units of Raleigh bicycles at the price of Easy-Transport plc of London which assumed the contract was on their terms and conditions, did not respect Wivenhoe Cycles Ltd's terms and conditions. Both parties assumed that the contract was on their terms and conditions, although none of the parties had acknowledged to the other's. The question raised here is whether or not the contract should be read on Easy-Transports plc's terms and conditions. [...]
Lecture en ligneet sans publicité !
Contenu vérifiépar notre comité de lecture