northville07
New Member
Well I have to do a law module and have a case to advise.
The question is "Advise A + B with regard to the relevant law of contract and explain what terms were actually agreed between them and the designer".
Two friends, A + B own a hotel and want to expand the building.
They called in a designer and told her their terms.
They said they want a new roof. The roof had to be retractable, made of stainless steel and glass.
They also wanted a new spa. This had to be made out of cedar wood.
The designer stated the work could be completed in 4 months at a cost of £200,500.
The designer then said the roof should be made out of timber and glass. The designer did not mention the wood to be used in the spa.
The two friends replied stating that the price was fine. However they insisted on the original materials.
They also said the work must be completed in 3 months. Then they sent a written contract with these terms and their signatures to the designer.
The designer received the written contract. She then added a clause saying "The agreement will be carried out under the conditions of my previous communication".
She signed it. Sent it back to A + B.
A + B received it. Read it. Then made the first payment.
A + B then went away on holiday while the work was carried out.
On their return after 2 and a half months, they found that the work had not been completed.
The roof had been made out of timber and glass. The spa was made out of marble.
They are unhappy and want to take action.
Well I am still unsure who is in the right. I think when A + B invited the designer, this was an invitation to treat. Meaning no offer was made, they just wanted to know how much it would cost.
They then made an offer to the designer.
But as she added a clause, this offer became void.
They then agreed to the new offer, with the clause, by making payment.
So I assume the agreement was under the designers terms, so they have no right to claim anything.
Anyone think different?
Thanks
The question is "Advise A + B with regard to the relevant law of contract and explain what terms were actually agreed between them and the designer".
Two friends, A + B own a hotel and want to expand the building.
They called in a designer and told her their terms.
They said they want a new roof. The roof had to be retractable, made of stainless steel and glass.
They also wanted a new spa. This had to be made out of cedar wood.
The designer stated the work could be completed in 4 months at a cost of £200,500.
The designer then said the roof should be made out of timber and glass. The designer did not mention the wood to be used in the spa.
The two friends replied stating that the price was fine. However they insisted on the original materials.
They also said the work must be completed in 3 months. Then they sent a written contract with these terms and their signatures to the designer.
The designer received the written contract. She then added a clause saying "The agreement will be carried out under the conditions of my previous communication".
She signed it. Sent it back to A + B.
A + B received it. Read it. Then made the first payment.
A + B then went away on holiday while the work was carried out.
On their return after 2 and a half months, they found that the work had not been completed.
The roof had been made out of timber and glass. The spa was made out of marble.
They are unhappy and want to take action.
Well I am still unsure who is in the right. I think when A + B invited the designer, this was an invitation to treat. Meaning no offer was made, they just wanted to know how much it would cost.
They then made an offer to the designer.
But as she added a clause, this offer became void.
They then agreed to the new offer, with the clause, by making payment.
So I assume the agreement was under the designers terms, so they have no right to claim anything.
Anyone think different?
Thanks