Case study 1
Christmas season is important to Ken’s store as it increases sales. A contract agreement was made by Ken (storeowner) and Sweet Inc. whereby, sweet Inc would supply Ken with 10,000 pounds of sugar on 15 November or before. However the offer made by the offeror expired because Sweet Inc. did not meet the deadline. Considering this agreement an offer was made and the other party accepted. This means that Sweet Inc. promised to deliver the goods before the deadline. Considering Legal law, Ken was in a position to purchase somewhere else in case Sweet Inc did not meet the deadline. He could decline the offer incase the deadline was not met. That is why he decided to purchase sugar from another company. This agreement can be termed as a bilateral contract because Sweet Inc. promised to deliver sugar to Ken as long as it is on a time schedule (before or on 15 November). The delays made by Sweet Inc. forced Ken to purchase sugar from someone else. This cost him extra expense above which they had agreed with Sweet Inc.
Ken had the right to sue Sweet Inc. for the damages made. If a party fails to reach its part of the deal, it has to face consequences. For instance, failure of Sweet Inc. to provide sugar to Ken for making candy, forced Ken to use more money to purchase the same amount of sugar. In addition, Ken lost sales and customers who said they would no longer buy candy from his store. All these damages affected Ken’s future sales and it would be proper if Sweet Inc. compensated him.
However, as a judge, it would be appropriate to consider both sides and give a fair judgment. Sweet Inc had a genuine reason for late delay. Management changed and production was altered. Several production problems may have led to the low production. For example, delays in supply of raw materials to the company and high cost of transportation because of poor management. In addition, there may be seasonal factors that may have caused the delay of transportation. In case they were not included, in the agreement then Ken would be considerate while pressing charges. Sweet Inc. should be responsible for paying his loses Ken incurred. In spite of the delays, Sweet Inc. should not be blamed for Ken loss of customers. He should have had an alternative because it was a risk he was taking. The offer was void because the subjected matter was destroyed and could not be fixed, as there was already a delay.
Sweet Inc. should only pay compensatory damages, as their agreement included only delivery dates. The person who made the offer never included the idea of payment of uncompensated damages. Therefore, even if he loses customers may be due to his in competences. There is no evidence that his regular customers could neglect him for the first time for failure to give them the service they required. It is upon Ken to build a relationship with his customers and make them understand that his supplier of the raw material (sugar) caused all the mess. The two should come with an agreement on how to pay loses to maintain a good understanding. In conclusion, Ken should receive compensation that can only solve the delays achieved.
