Group Assignment 1 PGDM 20 Term III BUL Submission Apr 02, 2012 1. Great India Co.

invited tenders for the construction work of a satellite town ship for a private party. The prospective bidders should fulfill the minimum criteria to take part in the bid. The parties are to furnish their balance sheet for the past 3 years and details of the major projects completed in the recent past. The company will scrutinize the details submitted by the parties and only qualified parties will be issued tender documents for a price of Rs.25, 000/-. ABC Constructions Ltd., was one of the firms short listed by the company along with other six firms. All seven firms submitted the completed tender documents to Company. Great India co. informed all the participants of the value quoted by each firm. ABC Constructions Ltd. Had the lowest rate. Thereafter, ABC Constructions Ltd., did not hear anything from Great India Co. It wrote to Great India Co. and was informed that the project is cancelled due to shortage of funds. But the real reason was that the co. was negotiating with a firm which had not even bid for the project. The negotiations did not work out. A year later, ABC Constructions Ltd. saw the same tender was being called again. ABC Constructions Ltd., is aggrieved now and contests that it has a right to be given the contract. Decide. 2. Kerala State Electricity Board floated tenders for supply and setting up of a substation in one of the towns in Kerala. Power Builders Kerala an undertaking of Govt. of Kerala purchased tender documents from the Electricity Board on 9th Sept. 2009. A Pvt. Company, Indira Electricals approached the Power Builders Kerala for their joint participation to submit tenders to the Electricity Board. The two companies decided to enter into an agreement. Towards this the Power Builders Kerala sent a draft agreement to Indira Electricals for signature. Indira Electricals signed the agreement by making some changes in the terms of the agreement where the liabilities are included. The draft agreement had made joint liability for the parties. That has been changed to liability of Power Builders alone. Tenders were unilaterally submitted by Power Builders Kerala on 20th Sep. 2009, the last date for submitting tenders. The tenders indicated that the work will be jointly done by Power Builders Kerala and India Electricals. However, before negotiating with the Electricity Board, Power Builders Kerala withdrew the tenders. Following this Indira Electricals through a letter offered to the Electricity Board to undertake the entire contract by itself and offered to complete the formalities with the board. Alongside, Indira Electricals claiming damages from the Power Builder Kerala saying that there was a contract between Indira Electricals and Power Builders Kerala. Can Indira Electricals win the battle? Explain with reasons.

3. During the tenor of Conservatives in the Government, the Council sent to tenants details of a scheme for the sale of council houses. Mr. Gibson, one of the tenants, immediately replied, paying the 3 administration fee. The council replied: "The Corporation may be prepared to sell the house to you at the purchase price of 2,725 less 20 per cent. 2,180 (freehold)." The letter gave details about a mortgage and went on "This letter should not be regarded as a firm offer of a mortgage. If you would like to make a formal application to buy your council house, please complete the enclosed application form and return it to me as soon as possible." Gibson filled in and returned the form. Labour Party took control of the council from the Conservatives and instructed their officers not to sell council houses unless they were legally bound to do so. The Council declined to sell to Mr. Gibson. Decide 4. Trentham built industrial units and subcontracted the windows to Luxfer . The work was done and paid for. Trentham then claimed damages from Luxfer because of defects in the windows. Luxfer argued that even though there had been letters, phone calls and meetings between the parties, there was no matching offer and acceptance and so no contract. Do you agree with Luxfer? Why, why not? 5. On Saturday, the McLean offered to sell iron to the Stevenson at 40 shillings a ton, open until Monday. On Monday at 10am, the Stevenson sent a telegram asking if he could have credit terms. At 1.34pm the Stevenson sent a telegram accepting the McLeans offer, but at 1.25pm the McLean had sent a telegram: 'Sold iron to third party' arriving at 1.46pm. Stevenson sued the McLean for breach of contract and the McLean argued that the Stevensons telegram was a counter-offer so the Stevensons second telegram could not be an acceptance. Decide who is correct. Can Stevenson win the case? Why, why not? 6. On 20 April 1865, the Secretary of War published in the public newspapers and issued a proclamation, announcing that liberal rewards will be paid for any information that leads to the arrest of certain named criminals. The proclamation was not limited in terms to any specific period. On 24 November 1865, the President issued an order revoking the offer of the reward. In 1866 the claimant discovered and identified one of the named persons, and informed the authorities. He was, at all times, unaware that the offer of the reward had been revoked. When he approached the authority for reward, it was refused. Can he claim reward, why, why not?

1) Variables in research design 2) Research design

3) Research question 4) Hypothesis 5) Steps in Research design 6) Data collection' 7) Research Problem Identification Process 8) Scaling methods