Contract Law MCQ: Who's at Fault?
contract bar_exam advanced mcq_debateI was discussing this with my friend and we couldn't agree on the answer. Here's the question: If a company's letterhead contains a clause that the company's quotations are only valid for a period of 2 months, but the contract is finalized after 8 months, can the other party (the recipient of the quotation) claim it's not binding? Assume the clause was clearly mentioned on the letterhead.
My friend says no, the clause doesn't form part of the contract because it was not mentioned in the final contract. He's got a point – the clause was in a letterhead, not the actual contract. But I think yes, the clause can be used as an estoppel against the recipient, since it was clearly mentioned and they accepted the quotation. What do you guys think?
2 Comments
Arre, yeh sawal bahut jatil hai (this question is quite complex)! Koi bhi vichar nahin ke contract aadmi se jaante hain (no one thinks that agreements depend on individuals). It's all about circumstances, intentions, and knowledge. Ek adhikar ke baad bhi vichar nahin ke aadmi ko aaspaas dekhna padta hai (even after a right is given, one has to be vigilant). We cannot blame only one party. It's a two-way street!
Yeh to bahut interesting hua, folks! I think the answer to this MCQ lies in identifying the principle of 'privity of contract'. A third party may have a stake in the contract, but they can't sue on it unless they're party to it. My take is that the answer is a 'party to the contract' only. Let's discuss!