Variable pricing is suitable to situations when the cost of certain elements of the product fluctuate unpredictably. For road building, asphalt fluctuates regularly. Furthermore, 5 years are long period, then variable pricing is the most appropriate method to achieve value for money and control budget.

A contract for window cleaning during the next three months is a short-term service contract, fixed price is the most suitable method.

A contract for the supply of lubricating oil for immediate delivery is an one-off contract, only fixed price is applicable.

A contract for the supply of 100 printing machines to be delivered next month is also an one-off contract.

Liquidated damages are presented in certain legal contracts as an estimate of otherwise intangible or hard-to-define losses to one of the parties. It is a provision that allows for the payment of a specified sum should one of the parties be in breach of contract.

Understanding Liquidated Damages

Liquidated damages are meant as a fair representation of losses in situations where actual damages are difficult to ascertain. In general, liquidated damages are meant to be fair, rather than punitive.

Liquidated damages may be referred to in a specific contract clause to cover circumstances where a party faces a loss from assets that do not have a direct monetary correlation. For example, if a party in a contract were to leak supply chain pricing information that is vital to a business, this could fall under liquidated damages.

A common example is a design phase for a new product that may involve consultation with outside suppliers and consultants in addition to a company ' s employees. The underlying plans or designs for a product might not have a set market value. This may be true even if the subsequent product is crucial to the progress and growth of a company. These plans may be deemed to be trade secrets of the business and highly sensitive. If the plans were exposed by a disgruntled employee or supplier, it could greatly hamper the ability to generate revenue from the release of that product. A company would have to make an estimation in advance of what such losses could cost in order to include this in a liquidated damages clause of a contract.

Limitations of Liquidated Damages

It is possible that a liquidated damages clause might not be enforced by the courts. This can occur if the monetary amount of liquidated damages cited in the clause is extraordinarily disproportional to the scope of what was affected by the breached contract.

Such limitations prevent a plaintiff from attempting to claim an unsubstantiated exorbitant amount from a defendant. For instance, a plaintiff might not be able to claim liquidated damages that amount to multiples of its gross revenue if the breach only affected a specific portion of its operations. The concept of liquidated damages is framed around compensation related to some harm and injury to the party rather than a fine imposed on the defendant.

The courts typically require that the parties involved make the most reasonable assessment possible for the liquidated damages clause at the time the contract is signed. This can provide a sense of understanding and reassurance of what is at stake if that aspect of the contract is breached. A liquidated damages clause can also give the parties involved a basis to negotiate from for an out-of-court settlement.

Developing new tender specifications should draw on:

Current supplier experience (1);

Alternative suppliers’ input (3);

Performance and usage data (4).Maintenance services (2) are unrelated to cleaning.

" Shall " denotes a mandatory requirement in contract language and implies absolute obligation. Unlike " reasonable endeavours " or " best endeavours " , which indicate a duty to try, " shall " creates a strict, enforceable duty to perform the task specified.

Supplier standard terms and conditions are drafted:

To protect the supplier’s interests,

To limit the supplier’s liability,

To secure favourable payment and performance conditions for the supplier.

If the buying organisation accepts these without negotiation (especially in a rush), it risks ending up with contract conditions that are favourable to the supplier (D) and less favourable protections for itself.

Express terms are the terms of the agreement which are expressly agreed between the parties. Ideally, they will be written down in a contract between the parties but where the contract is agreed verbally, they will be the terms discussed and agreed between the parties.

Implied terms are terms implied into the contract by the courts. They are not expressly set out in the contract but are taken to be as effective as if they were and as if they had been included from day one of the contract. The express terms and any implied terms together create the legally binding obligations on the parties.

A non-disclosure agreement is used to protect confidential information shared during discussions or collaborations. It ensures that sensitive data is not disclosed to unauthorized parties and maintains trust between contractual parties during tendering or negotiation.

To solve the question, you must distinguish the following notion:

- Offer: The case of Storer v Manchester City Council [1974] 1 WLR 1403 outlines that an offer is: An expression of willingness to contract on specified terms, with the intention that it is to be binding once accepted

- Acceptance: in order for a contract to be formed, the offer must be accepted. Acceptance represents the meeting of the minds of the parties to the contract – both agree to exchange something for the other (payment, services, goods, etc.).

- Counter offer: is an offer made in response to a prior offer.

- Invitation to treat: An important distinction to make in contract law is that between an offer and an invitation to treat. An invitation to treat is usually an invitation for another party to make an offer. It may also be defined as an indication that a party is open to negotiation.

Here are some key distinctions of offers and invitation to treats.

Offer:

* Certain promise to be bound

* Clear and specified terms

* The conduct or words of the party show certainty

* There is no room for negotiation

Invitation to treat:

* There is room for negotiation

* There is an invitation for offers

* There is a request for information

* Lack of certainty

In the scenario above, initially Michelle just gives an invitation to treat because she is asking whether Hannah is interested to buy her car (request for information from Hannah). Hannah may reject or go into a negotiation with Michelle. Then, Hannah makes an offer by taking the money andshows her intention to be legally bound. At this point, when Hannah ' s offer is present, Michelle can accept or reject. When she rejects, the contract is not formed. The answer must be " No, because Michelle has rejected Hannah ' s offer on buying the car " .

In certain circumstances, where two parties have monetary debts against each other, the right to set-off may arise. A right of set-off allows a (“Party 1”) to take into account the amount owed to it by the second party (“Party 2”) against any amount owed by Party 1 to Party 2, each party must be a debtor and a creditor.

Common law provides the key features that must be present for set-off to arise are;

1. mutuality of debts (each party must be the sole beneficial owner of the debt it is owed and the sole person liable for the debt it owes)

2. the claims each party has must be for non-payment of money

The common law provisions of set-off can be greatly enhanced by the inclusion of a contractual right to set-off (this is discussed further below) so that set-off is applicable in a greater range of situations. If you envisage set-off being a useful right it is not advisable to rely on the implied ability to use it (via common law or equitable set-off). Common law and equitable set-off are subject to various conditions and limitation however, a contractual right of set-off can be drafted to ensure parties are able to agree exactly how and when set-off should be applied.

In the above scenario, the supplier owes the manufacturer the payment for damages, while the manufacturer owes the supplier the payment for goods. This is mutuality of debts, which leads to right of set off.