ABLE DEMOLITION v. PONTIAC
Question 1
By law, a legal agreement (which is binding) is done between two or more parties (voluntary) which is known to be a contract. In my opinion, I would consider the results to be seen to be fair due to the fact that this word agreement is between two or more parties. If we take into context the contract signed on the 1st of July in 2004 between Able Demolition and Pontiac (the former was able to get certain abandoned homes), the terms of the contract show that Able was required to have the “Letter to Proceed” which is a special permission they needed before they would be allowed to go ahead with demolishment of the homes. The letter expressed that this job being conducted is approved along with that it helped to show details regarding the payment which was to be done after the job. Yet the plaintiff did not procedure or request such a letter which expresses the approval of the job hence forth there is no legal binding to provide any sort of compensation or payment since through the eyes of the defendant this job was not approved which easily shows that the terms of a simple contract were not followed. Able was unable to meet the contract terms or follow the legal protocol provided which is why there is no requirement for any compensation to be provided by the defendant.
Ignorance was the greatest reason why Able is in this scenario, they did not honor the contract which is where they are flawed. In addition, I would consider many other factors which would contribute to such a scenario:
Able might have ended up employing different employees as the project progressed hence they were not fully aware of the technical protocols required by the contract which were a must to follow before the demolition of the houses.
This scenario also came about due to the fact Able wanted to minimize their cost buy using cheaper machinery to conduct the demolition process, by doing so they clearly maximize their profits. For the company, the very first objective was to conduct the job of demolishing the house which could be a reason why they assumed there was no need to get any letters of preapproval done.
The issue might be due to both management companies, they might have been friends so thought there was no legal need or requirement to be done officially so information was just passed in a unofficial manner. This reason could have been why the head approved the beginning of the job before seeking a preapproval letter from the Pontiac.
I would for sure say that the decision taken by the court is completely fair since Able breeched requirements set legally by Pontiac and just proceeded with the job instead. There is no scope of confusion either due to the simplicity and clear terminology of the document hence the claim of the contract being ambiguous does not count in any way. Bottom line is that the company failed to comply with the legal terms and should not be given any compensation, if it were me I would have made the same rulings as the current judge did.
Question 2
In this case, there are clearly many reasons due to which this issue has arisen.
Ignorance of Able to honor the contract fully.
Hiring different employees to carry out the project at different timings in the timeline.
To maximizing profit while minimizing costs by using cheaper machinery to carry the job out.
Both parties might have had an unofficial relationship hence thought that these basic legal requirements would not matter later on so they gave the let go to the workers to start the demolition process.
Able chose not to seriously take into consideration the requirements set by the legal department of Pontiac so it not only shows sheer ignorance but also immensely carelessness by the company. It is a known rule that every contract has certain conditions, rules and terms which are a must to follow by both parties whom are in agreement. Even after the contract had been signed Able did not take the contract serious enough which is why they are now in this scenario and paying the price of their actions.
References
Schwartz, A. (1992). Legal contract theories and incomplete contracts. Contract Economics, 7, 6-108.
Taylor, J. A. (2008). Commercial and Contract Law. Wayne L. Rev., 54, 85.
Question 1
By law, a legal agreement (which is binding) is done between two or more parties (voluntary) which is known to be a contract. In my opinion, I would consider the results to be seen to be fair due to the fact that this word agreement is between two or more parties. If we take into context the contract signed on the 1st of July in 2004 between Able Demolition and Pontiac (the former was able to get certain abandoned homes), the terms of the contract show that Able was required to have the “Letter to Proceed” which is a special permission they needed before they would be allowed to go ahead with demolishment of the homes. The letter expressed that this job being conducted is approved along with that it helped to show details regarding the payment which was to be done after the job. Yet the plaintiff did not procedure or request such a letter which expresses the approval of the job hence forth there is no legal binding to provide any sort of compensation or payment since through the eyes of the defendant this job was not approved which easily shows that the terms of a simple contract were not followed. Able was unable to meet the contract terms or follow the legal protocol provided which is why there is no requirement for any compensation to be provided by the defendant.
Ignorance was the greatest reason why Able is in this scenario, they did not honor the contract which is where they are flawed. In addition, I would consider many other factors which would contribute to such a scenario:
Able might have ended up employing different employees as the project progressed hence they were not fully aware of the technical protocols required by the contract which were a must to follow before the demolition of the houses.
This scenario also came about due to the fact Able wanted to minimize their cost buy using cheaper machinery to conduct the demolition process, by doing so they clearly maximize their profits. For the company, the very first objective was to conduct the job of demolishing the house which could be a reason why they assumed there was no need to get any letters of preapproval done.
The issue might be due to both management companies, they might have been friends so thought there was no legal need or requirement to be done officially so information was just passed in a unofficial manner. This reason could have been why the head approved the beginning of the job before seeking a preapproval letter from the Pontiac.
I would for sure say that the decision taken by the court is completely fair since Able breeched requirements set legally by Pontiac and just proceeded with the job instead. There is no scope of confusion either due to the simplicity and clear terminology of the document hence the claim of the contract being ambiguous does not count in any way. Bottom line is that the company failed to comply with the legal terms and should not be given any compensation, if it were me I would have made the same rulings as the current judge did.
Question 2
In this case, there are clearly many reasons due to which this issue has arisen.
Ignorance of Able to honor the contract fully.
Hiring different employees to carry out the project at different timings in the timeline.
To maximizing profit while minimizing costs by using cheaper machinery to carry the job out.
Both parties might have had an unofficial relationship hence thought that these basic legal requirements would not matter later on so they gave the let go to the workers to start the demolition process.
Able chose not to seriously take into consideration the requirements set by the legal department of Pontiac so it not only shows sheer ignorance but also immensely carelessness by the company. It is a known rule that every contract has certain conditions, rules and terms which are a must to follow by both parties whom are in agreement. Even after the contract had been signed Able did not take the contract serious enough which is why they are now in this scenario and paying the price of their actions.
References
Schwartz, A. (1992). Legal contract theories and incomplete contracts. Contract Economics, 7, 6-108.
Taylor, J. A. (2008). Commercial and Contract Law. Wayne L. Rev., 54, 85.
Azza,
ReplyDeleteYour first statement rings true as a legal agreement is done between two or more parties voluntary. Able was faced with a contract and signed on the terms and conditions. The contract states that prior to demolition that each home needs to have written approval prior to being demolished. The city of Pontiac stated that these terms was to protect homes that could essentially be demolished that were not included in the contract. I have stated in my blog and responses to others that government contracting is not the easiest to accomplish. Bidding typically works as the lowest bidder will win with a clause that the government can remove a bid if they feel the party purposely underbid or isn’t qualified to handle a contract. The professor brought up some great information on the work being performed. Do you feel the contractor should have least been compensated at cost? What this means is whatever cost Able covered should be covered by the contract since the work was conducted. I am curious if you feel the same that some compensation would have been adequate?