Introduction
Contract formation is crucial to business transactions, establishing rights and duties for the parties involved. Contract formation rules are essential for defining stakeholder power and benefits. This research will only determine if these rules benefit large business sellers or the public in general if they address consumer laws. The report will help customers comprehend the advantages and disadvantages of different company forms by examining their details. Thus, they may optimize operations and objectives with informed decisions. The report aims to help London Business Advisory’s clients navigate the complex world of business transactions and structures by examining contract formation rules and UK business structures.
Part I: Rules Regarding Contract Formation
Offer and Acceptance
The formation of a contract requires a valid offer and unconditional acceptance. An offer is a party’s proposition for a contract. Negotiations and acceptance are based on the offer. The offer must be clear and conveyed to the other party. It should contain price, quantity, quality, delivery terms, and other pertinent agreement terms. The offer should be clear enough for the receiver to grasp and react (McFarlane et al., 2021, para.11). Offerees may accept, reject, or counter offers. Acceptance means unconditional acceptance of all offer conditions. The offeror must receive it as described or implied. Acceptance usually takes effect when sent.
Neutral offer and acceptance rules provide fairness and mutual agreement. Practically, negotiating power inequalities may occur. Sellers, massive enterprises, have more influence and may demand bid conditions. Power imbalance may take many forms. Large sellers may have non-negotiable terms, limiting buyer flexibility. They may also use purchasers’ restricted options to enforce unfavourable conditions (Durovic & Janssen, 2019, p. 4). Sellers may also use their experience to tailor terms to their advantage. Consumers and small enterprises with little resources or negotiation strength may find this problematic. Many countries protect consumers and parties with weaker negotiating positions to address these inequities (FBA & Cartwright, 2020, p. 279). Consumer protection and unfair contract terms level the playing field and encourage fair and equitable commercial agreements.
Consideration
Consideration is a crucial element of Contract law; it requires parties to give something valuable to show their desire to form legally binding relationships. This essential requirement prevents courts from enforcing unnecessary commitments. The legal system encourages fair and reciprocal transactions by requiring deliberation. Consideration is the profit or damage any contracting party gets or suffers (FBA & Cartwright, 2020, p. 636). Money, products, services, commitments to do or not do something or legal rights may be exchanged. This value exchange indicates the parties’ desire to engage in a legally enforceable agreement, distinguishing a contract from gifts or goodwill. More significant firm sellers have benefits in seeking better consideration conditions. Contract discussions may benefit from their resources, market position, and negotiating strength. They may be able to negotiate better conditions, such as increased payments, delivery terms, or contractual terms (Zhu et al. 2023, para. 15). Consideration is not meant to prolong contract negotiating injustice or imbalance. Contract law courts protect fairness, rationality, and equity (Knapp et al., 2023, para. 15). Unconscionable contracts may be invalidated when one party is severely disadvantaged.
Intention to Create Legal Relations
Parties must demonstrate an intention to create legal relations for a contract to be legally enforceable. This requirement agrees on a binding contract with legal consequences. This desire is inferred in business transactions but does not benefit sellers or buyers. Due to business-to-business transactions, the presumption of legal connections is more significant. Commercial interactions entail exchanging products or services for money, and both parties expect to be bound by their agreement (Ahl & Marlow, 2021, p. 46). In such cases, the law presumes the parties want to form legal relations. However, major corporate sellers frequently have well-defined standard contract terms and conditions. They may benefit from these standardized terms and conditions. These standard conditions protect the seller by addressing frequent business concerns and dangers. These standard conditions may restrict supplier responsibility, set warranties or guarantees, or create dispute resolution methods. Large company sellers may improve their position and reduce commercial risks by including such provisions in their contracts. They can work more effectively and avoid expensive disagreements and lawsuits. However, standard terms and conditions must be reasonable and fair to be enforceable. A court may invalidate unconscionable or unfair provisions if they harm the weaker party severely. Additionally, consumer protection laws in many countries protect customers from unfair contract conditions.
Capacity and Legality
Contract parties must have legal capacity; they should have a sound mind and not be minors or legally disabled. Contract content must be lawful. These rules maintain justice and safeguard weak contractual parties. Large firm sellers are more likely to have the ability and resources to complete complicated transactions under these guidelines. Legal capacity is a fundamental aspect of contract law (Knapp et al., 2023, para. 21). It assures contracting parties are mentally competent and able to understand the terms. This regulation prevents mentally impaired people from making uninformed judgments. Minors can only engage in binding contracts if they have maturity and judgment. Legal limitations, such as severe cognitive impairments, may prevent contracting (Szmukler, 2019, p. 34). Contract legality depends on the legal subject matter. The contract’s aim and conditions cannot violate public policy or be unlawful. This prevents the judicial system from enforcing destructive or unethical agreements. Contracts involving illicit drug sales or fraud would be invalid. These restrictions protect vulnerable parties, but significant company sellers frequently have more legal power and resources than individuals or smaller companies (Szmukler, 2019, p. 40). This advantage is due to commercial reality, not restrictions. Large firms may afford sophisticated transactions and employ legal teams or consultants to assure legal compliance. Due to limited ability and resources, smaller parties may be disadvantaged in contractual talks.
Formalities and Express Terms
Contracts may be oral, written, or implied from conduct. Contracts are often valid regardless of their form, which helps sellers and buyers. However, major firm sellers have standard contract templates and may negotiate better terms. A contract may be formed without writing or procedures. Oral agreements that include an offer, acceptance, and Consideration might be legally enforceable (FBA & Cartwright, 2020, p. 279). This streamlines corporate interactions and reduces paperwork. This flexibility helps fast-moving sectors and time-sensitive negotiations reach agreements. However, formal contracts have benefits. They prevent misunderstandings and disagreements by clearly stating the parties’ terms and conditions. Written contracts help enforce rights and obligations in court by providing proof. Written contracts safeguard both parties in complicated transactions or large-dollar transactions. Contracts may also be implied by conduct. Thus, parties’ acts may generate legally enforceable duties without express agreements (FBA & Cartwright, 2020, p. 432). Even without a written contract, ordering and paying for a good online indicates a contract between the customer and seller. Large company sellers have benefits when forming contracts. These suppliers have typical contracts that safeguard their interests. Their market position also allows them to negotiate better rates. Buyers, particularly smaller firms and individuals with fewer resources and knowledge, may be disadvantaged by this negotiating power gap.
Part II: Main Business Structures in the UK
Limited Liability Companies
Limited liability companies (LLCs) provide shareholders with limited liability protection and a unique legal entity, making them a good alternative for protecting personal assets from corporate debts and liabilities. LLCs have a flexible ownership structure and access to financial markets, making them suited for many customers (Billis & Rochester, 2020, p. 273). Limited liability protection is a significant benefit of creating an LLC. Unlike sole proprietors or partnerships, LLC shareholders are not individually accountable for the company’s obligations. If the corporation has financial problems or legal challenges, shareholders’ houses, automobiles, and money are usually safe. LLCs also have credibility and professionalism due to their legal personality (Billis & Rochester, 2020, p. 103). This may help more prominent companies establish themselves in the market. The clear separation of personal and corporate liability makes LLCs more attractive to investors, lenders, and partners.
An LLC’s ownership structure is also flexible. LLCs provide greater flexibility in ownership and administration than corporations, with a strict hierarchy of shareholders, directors, and officers. An LLC’s members may decide how the firm is run and how earnings and losses are distributed. The firm and its owners may customize this flexibility to meet their requirements. Capital markets are another benefit of the LLC form. LLCs may raise funds more quickly than partnerships or single proprietorships (Billis & Rochester, 2020, p. 383). LLCs’ limited liability protection and clear legal structure appeal to lenders and investors who want less risk and more certainty.
Partnerships
Partnerships are a business structure consisting of two or more parties working together to achieve a goal. Partners share earnings, losses, and management in a partnership. This collaborative model provides shared decision-making, financial investment, and risks and benefits. Most partnerships are general or limited liability partnerships (LLPs). General partners share corporate earnings and losses. General partnerships lack minimal liability protection, a significant downside (Billis & Rochester, 2020, p. 439). Any corporate obligations or debts might jeopardize the partners’ assets. This unrestricted personal responsibility may deter people from risking their assets in the company. LLPs provide limited liability and partnership flexibility. LLP partners are protected from partnership debts and liabilities. This protects their assets from corporate litigation, creditor claims, and other obligations. However, LLP partners are individually accountable for their acts and any obligations they guarantee.
Partnerships suit customers who want freedom, control, and company engagement. Partnerships lack shareholders, directors, and officers, unlike corporations. Partners may make choices together and actively engage in company operations. This collaborative atmosphere encourages innovation and flexibility by letting partners share their expertise. Large business sellers prefer cooperation for specialized initiatives (Gottlieb et al., 2020, para. 2). Businesses may handle more significant projects, penetrate new markets, and explore creative prospects by using the capabilities and resources of several partners. Businesses may share risks and expenses by partnering. Partnerships provide tax benefits. Partnerships are not double-taxed (Billis & Rochester, 2020, p. 303). Instead, partners record partnership income and losses on their tax returns. Pass-through taxes enable partners to avoid corporate income tax, which is particularly beneficial for small enterprises. Partnerships also have disadvantages.
Sole Traders
Sole traders operate in their businesses, taking all business debts and liabilities. The business structure simplifies operations, giving entrepreneurs full power with few legal requirements. It is ideal for low-risk entrepreneurs. Businesses may outgrow the sole trader form because of its scalability limits, access to financing, and personal liability risk. Sole traders benefit from their simplicity (Lominé et al., 2019, p. 3). Unlike other business arrangements, single proprietorships need few legal procedures. Startups may use their own names or trade names. This simplified method lets people concentrate on their goods and services rather than legal processes to start their firm. Sole traders have complete control over their businesses. The lone decision-maker may quickly and independently steer their firm. This control offers flexibility and agility to adjust to market situations, client requests, and industry trends. Sole traders may choose and change tactics without consulting partners or a board of directors. The sole trader structure also lets the proprietor keep all company earnings. Sole merchants own their profits, unlike partners or shareholders. This may benefit those who appreciate financial freedom and wish to benefit directly from their hard work and entrepreneurial initiatives.
The sole trader structure may restrict a growing firm. Scalability is difficult. Due to limited resources and skills, sole merchants need help to grow. The person may need help managing manufacturing, sales, marketing, and administration as the organization expands. This might cause bottlenecks and limit the business’s growth and competitiveness. Sole traders also struggle with money.
Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs)
The UK’s Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) is a famous business structure. It offers a flexible and advantageous framework for certain types of businesses. Like shareholders in an LLC, LLP partners have limited responsibility. This protects their assets from partnership debts. This benefit is especially useful in high-risk sectors. LLPs offer managerial and decision-making freedom. Partners may set up their governance structure and share earnings and losses. This flexibility offers customized solutions and adaptability to company and partner demands. LLPs have legal individuality (Pacini et al., 2021, p. 77). They may contract, hold property, and sue or be sued in their name. This legal status lends legitimacy to the LLP’s commercial dealings and finance. Law, accounting, and consulting businesses benefit from LLPs. These companies demand professional competence and teamwork. LLPs enable them to work together with limited responsibility. LLPs allow professionals to collaborate while reducing liability concerns. This structure encourages cooperation and boosts the firm’s reputation among customers and stakeholders.
London Business Advisory may assist clients in professional services or joint enterprises to form an LLP for limited liability, flexibility in decision-making, and profit-sharing. In high-liability businesses, the LLP structure protects experts’ assets. LLPs allow professionals to concentrate on their skills and primary company operations without worrying about legal and financial commitments. LLPs are flexible beyond liability protection. Partners choose their regulations and management structure (Pacini et al., 2021, p. 75). Unlike other corporate arrangements, they may customize and fairly distribute profits and losses. This flexibility lets partners and the organization customize their strategy to their requirements and objectives. An LLP’s independent legal identity makes commercial transactions and funding easier. The LLP may own contracts, assets, and property.
Conclusion
Contract formation rules favour neither big business sellers nor buyers. Large business sellers may have advantages because of their resources and market position, but the regulations work to promote fairness and safeguard all parties. London Company Advisory should evaluate each client’s liability protection, capital access, and control demands while advising them on the best company structure. The proper company structure should support the client’s long-term objectives and optimize operations in a competitive market.
Bibliography
Ahl, H., & Marlow, S. (2021). Exploring the false promise of entrepreneurship through a postfeminist critique of the enterprise policy discourse in Sweden and the UK. Human Relations, 74(1), 41–68.
Billis, D., & Rochester, C. (Eds.). (2020). Handbook on hybrid organizations. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Durovic, M., & Janssen, A. (2019). The formation of intelligent contracts and beyond Shaking the fundamentals of contract law. Smart Contracts and Blockchain Technology: Role of Contract Law, 1-27.
FBA, Q. H. B., & Cartwright, J. (2020). Anson’s law of contract. Oxford university press.
Gottlieb, S. C., Frederiksen, N., Koch, C., & Thuesen, C. (2020). Hybrid organizations as trading zones: responses to institutional complexity in shaping strategic partnerships. Construction Management and Economics, 38(7), 603-622.
Hendri, M. I. (2019). The mediation effect of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on the organizational learning effect of employee performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 68(7), 1208-1234.
Knapp, C. L., Crystal, N. M., Prince, H. G., Hart, D. K., & Silverstein, J. M. (2023). Problems in Contract Law: Cases and materials. Aspen Publishing.
Lominé, L., Muchena, M., & Pierce, R. (2019). Business Management. Oxford University Press.
McFarlane, B., Hopkins, N., & Nield, S. (2021). Land Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Oxford University Press.
Pacini, C., Lin, J.W. and Patterson, G. (2021). Using shell entities for money laundering: methods, consequences, and policy implications. Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting, 13(1), 73–89.
Szmukler, G. (2019). “Capacity”, “best interests”, “will and preferences”, and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. World Psychiatry, 18(1), 34–41.
Zhu, X., Song, Y., Lin, G., & Xu, W. (2023). Pricing Decisions and Coordination in E-Commerce Supply Chain with Wholesale Price Contract Considering Focus Preferences. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 18(2), 1041–1068.
write