Search results

Most business contracts are meant to be in writing, on standard terms. However, with the facilities of communications, businesspersons will talk business on the phone. With this, contentions will arise, whether they were only negotiating or had gone the distance and made a contract. If they have contracted, what are the terms of the contract? The case explores the judgement of the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgement, Wells v Devani, which is on the theme of oral contracts.

A person can approach the High Court directly under Article 226 for a violation of a Fundamental Right. The Fundamental Rights, however, are available only against the bodies which are ‘state’ within Article 12 of the Constitution. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University extends the ambit of Article 226 to all bodies, whether governmental or private, which are performing ‘public function’ or ‘public duty’. Imparting education is taken to be a public function. The judgement opens new dimensions of constitutional law

Case B assesses the options available to the government and private operators in light of the SC judgment. It provides scope for examining the dimensions for auction design by illustrating the subsequent exercise undertaken by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.

Business contracts are formed through negotiations, where the parties agree on some terms, disagree on others and keep yet others undecided. Over a period of time, they see themselves as having moved from being negotiating parties to contracting parties, settling on most of the terms. The law, however, states that a contract is formed when a person makes an offer and the other accepts it. The principle arose from the rudimentary trade practices in the past. The principles coming from the prior centuries and the modern business practices may not be in consonance. The Gibson v. Manchester City Council Case, a judgement of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, reviewed attempts to modernize the law.

Online stores sell thousands of products and services. Despite all care, mistakes can occur. These mistakes can have severe implications for the seller. A contract once formed is normally binding on the parties. The seller gets bound to sell at the mistaken price. Can an online seller get out of the contract on the ground that the price was a mistake? The only court judgement on the theme is Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, a judgement of the Singapore High Court. With reference to the judgement, the case explores pricing mistakes by online stores.

The case discusses the issues related to Zee Tele Films Limited's claims that the Board of Cricket Control of India was “state” and could act arbitrarily in the award of telecasting rights. The “state” as defined in Article 12 includes “other authorities”, and these are subject to the constitutional limitations. The right to equality requires them to not act arbitrarily. A body which is an instrumentality or agency of the government is “other authority”. The term has been subject to judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court, by a majority judgement, in the Zee Tele Films Case ruled that the Board is not “other authorities” within Article 12 of the Constitution.

The case deals with the Supreme Court's decision of August 31, 2012, ordering Sahara to refund Rs. 24,000 crores and interest to SEBI, so as to refund to the real investors. Despite unambiguous orders, Sahara did not comply fully and kept on prolonging the matter using number of pretexts, ultimately resulting in Roy's arrest. The case has been primarily written for easy understanding of facts, principles of corporate governance, and further developments, as mentioned in judgment, which runs into hundreds of pages. It depicts the legal journey of the fight between a company and the financial regulator in the country.

The Mercini Lady Case is a modern statement of the law on the rights of the buyer in a sale contract. The seller has to supply goods in conformity with description, of merchantable quality and fit for the stated use. These rights, the ‘implied conditions’, however, can be ousted by express terms in the contract. The Court of Appeal judgement of the UK keenly considered that the exclusion clause should be interpreted in its business sense. However, it sided with precedence established over hundred years that the exclusion clauses take away valuable rights of the buyer and must be strictly and technically constructed.

Upon completion of this case study, students are expected to be able to reflect on strategic industry sectors and the formulation of long-view public policies; understand some of the main biases that affect making decisions in environments of high uncertainty; and build and apply judgment models to support decision-making processes.

Motivated by recent international events responsible for causing supply shock and great volatility in the price of imported fertilizers, Brazil, which in 2022 was responsible for producing only 15% of all the fertilizer consumed by its agribusiness, ran against time by launching a new national fertilizer plan (PNF). The plan proposed to boost Brazil’s national fertilizer industry to fulfil a long-term vision of reducing the country’s external dependence by 2050. While awaiting the first results of the PNF, this case study casts the student participants in the role of Breno Castelães, chief advisor of the special secretariat for strategic affairs of the presidency of the republic, whose role is to recommend the country’s position in the face of external pressures to adopt international embargoes of Russian fertilizers because of its war with Ukraine.

This case study is suitable for undergraduate and graduate students of business administration and public management courses who want to deal with topics such as public policy, judgment and decision-making.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 10: Public sector management.

The digital medium has created new ways of contracting through web pages and smartphone apps. The websites and apps put numerous terms of contract. In some cases, the user is required to click on them, and other times, the user may or may not even notice the terms. Are the terms put by the sites and apps binding? The case explores the theme with the Uber Case, a judgement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on the application of the terms in the Uber app.