According to Issue, Rule, Analysis and Conclusion (IRAC) analysis; the issue brought out here is as to whether G.P Industries suit against Mataline is a valid claim. According to my understanding; G.P Industries do not have a case against Mataline and this is because first of all, Mataline stated clearly in their quotation that they would allow for any modifications, changes, cancellations, suspensions and suspensions that would be brought forward by G.P Industries before they sent their purchase order. This basically means that G.P Industries should have adequately carried out a research on the product that they would place an order. They should have made sure that they did a thorough analysis on the gaskets that they were ordering in terms of the contents, what the ingredients used to make them are, the process of how they are made and any side effects that would arise out of the content emission after use.

If G.P Industries had carried out such an analysis and discovered that the gaskets they were about to purchase did contain sulphur that would cause damage to their building; they would have adequately altered their purchase order to adequately suit their needs or agreed with Mataline on another product rather than this particular one. Or alternatively; they would have opted to get a totally different product from a different company. By the meager fact that G.P Industries agreed to buy the gaskets by placing their sign on the quotation from Mataline and sending them their order meant that they did need for any changes or modifications to be made on the gaskets that they were ordering for. This therefore means that on sending their purchase order to Mataline, the contract of purchase between Mataline and G.P Industries ensued and therefore Mataline are not liable for any damages that their product may have had on the G.P industry’s building. They cannot be held claim for the indemnity and the arbitration resolution clauses found in the G. P Industries purchase order.

On the contrary I think G.P Industries should be held liable for breach of contract because first and foremost they had the time to analyze, evaluate and research on the after effects of the gaskets before purchase. Secondly; they had an option of refusing to purchase the gaskets from Mataline or alternatively they would have asked for modifications and or changes to be made in the particular product that they were about to order so as to ensure that it did not have repercussions that it had on their building. Mataline shipped the gaskets knowing that G.P Industries had clearly read and understood the terms contained in their quotation and were pleased with the product; and thus a contract had ensued. G.P Industries wanting to terminate the supply of gaskets form Mataline basically means breach of contract and thus they would be liable.

In the second case; the initial contract existed between R.M. Schult & Associates and Graphic Network. These two companies had initially agreed on a contract that the designers would come with a product, the Head End System that would suit Graphic Network’s needs. The introduction of a third party should not have changed the contract that had existed initially. This basically meant that R.M. Schult & Associates have a case but their case is against Graphic Network. This is because the initial contract existed between Schult and Grahic Network and Computer Systems is just a third party who is a beneficiary of the initial contract between these two companies. They had no right to alter the product to what it was initially and eventually disagree to pay. If Computer Systems had signed a new contract with Schult, then it means that Schult has a case against them mainly because in this case Computer Systems would be the representatives of Graphic System and any claim that Schult has against them ought to be directed towards Computer System. What are the chances of Schult winning this case? They could sue Graphic Networks on breach of contract and alteration of the clauses within the contract and failure of compensation. On the contrary; they can also sue Computer Systems on breach of contract based on failure to bring to term the agreement of the contract between them; assuming that Graphic Network had handed over the contract to Computer Systems. I therefore think that they can actually win the case basing their argument that the contract had been transferred to Computer Systems by Graphic Networks and Computer Systems altered the terms of the initial contract to what both the current parties agreed to.

Schult made the goods in accordance to the requirements sated by Computer Systems but Computer Systems refused to pay for the goods delivered by Schult to them. They also terminated the contact before its completion thus causing losses to Schult in terms of the time consumed in the alteration of the product, the labor used during the alteration and also the additional raw materials used in the improvement of the product. They could sue based on the damages caused to them in terms of the above and also the losses that they will incur after producing a product that the buyer is not willing to purchase. Yes, they could actually win the case.