Introduction
This essay seeks to provide legal advice to the Queen Mary Environmental Society (QMES) regarding two distinct contractual disputes with EcoPrint Ltd, a company specialising in printing environmentally friendly materials. The first issue concerns the withdrawal of a 40% discount on printing orders, which QMES believed was assured for their leaflet order placed on 25 June. The second relates to a subsequent agreement for printing posters, involving a disputed rush fee and the use of non-recycled paper contrary to representations made by EcoPrint. By analysing these issues through the lens of English contract law, this essay will assess whether QMES has viable claims against EcoPrint for breach of contract or misrepresentation. The discussion will focus on key legal principles, including offer and acceptance, consideration, and the remedies available for breach, while also considering practical implications for QMES as a student society. The analysis aims to provide a structured and reasoned legal perspective on how QMES might approach resolving these disputes.
Issue 1: Withdrawal of the 40% Discount on Leaflet Order
The first issue involves the 40% discount initially advertised on EcoPrint’s website for student society orders placed before 30 June 2025, subject to availability and potential withdrawal. QMES, relying on this offer, sought confirmation via email from EcoPrint’s sales manager, who assured Priya that the discount would apply if the order was placed by the end of June. However, on 24 June, the website was updated to reflect that the discount had ended due to overwhelming demand, and EcoPrint subsequently refused to honour it for QMES’s order placed on 25 June.
Under English contract law, a contract is formed when there is an offer, acceptance, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations (Adams, 2016). The advertisement of the 40% discount on EcoPrint’s website can be construed as an invitation to treat rather than a unilateral offer, meaning it invites potential customers to make an offer to purchase under the stated terms (Partridge v Crittenden, 1968). However, the email exchange between Priya and EcoPrint’s sales manager complicates this analysis. The sales manager’s assurance that the discount would apply if the order was placed by the end of June arguably constitutes a specific promise or unilateral offer directed to QMES, distinct from the general website advertisement. Priya’s subsequent order on 25 June could be seen as acceptance of this offer, creating a binding agreement for the discount to apply.
Nevertheless, EcoPrint might argue that the website update on 24 June effectively revoked the offer before QMES’s acceptance, as the original terms stated the offer could be withdrawn at any time. Revocation of an offer is valid if communicated before acceptance (Byrne v Van Tienhoven, 1880). However, since QMES was not directly notified of the revocation and relied on the specific assurance from the sales manager, they may contend that EcoPrint was estopped from revoking the offer without prior notice to them (Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd, 1947). This principle of promissory estoppel suggests that EcoPrint’s promise induced reliance by QMES, and it would be inequitable to allow EcoPrint to retract the discount without warning. Thus, QMES has a reasonable argument that the discount should apply, though the lack of direct notification of revocation might weaken EcoPrint’s defence.
Issue 2: Rush Fee and Use of Non-Recycled Paper for Poster Order
The second issue arises from the agreement in September for EcoPrint to print 3000 posters for QMES’s “Planet in Peril” conference within four days. Two sub-issues emerge: the imposition of a £300 rush fee and the use of standard paper instead of the promised recycled paper.
Regarding the rush fee, EcoPrint initially agreed to deliver within four days without mentioning additional costs. The subsequent imposition of a £300 fee, to which Priya countered with an offer of £150, raises questions of whether this fee was part of the original contract or a variation. Under contract law, a variation requires agreement from both parties and, typically, additional consideration (Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd, 1991). Here, EcoPrint’s unilateral imposition of the fee without prior agreement suggests no valid variation occurred. Priya’s offer of £150 might be seen as a counter-offer or compromise, but since the original terms did not include a rush fee, QMES could argue that they are not obliged to pay more than the originally agreed price. However, EcoPrint might counter that the overnight printing was beyond the scope of the initial agreement, necessitating the fee. Given QMES’s financial constraints and the importance of the conference, refusing the fee might have risked non-delivery, complicating their position.
On the issue of non-recycled paper, EcoPrint’s representative explicitly stated that “all our posters are printed on 100% recycled paper,” a representation also reflected on their website. QMES relied on this in placing the order, only to discover standard paper was used due to supply issues unknown to the representative. This raises the possibility of misrepresentation, defined as a false statement of fact made by one party to induce another into a contract (Bisset v Wilkinson, 1927). While the representative’s belief in the accuracy of the statement suggests no fraudulent intent, it could still constitute negligent misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 if QMES can show reliance and loss. Although the campaign was successful and the printing quality was good, QMES members’ dissatisfaction indicates a breach of their environmental values, which might be argued as non-material damage. Alternatively, QMES could claim breach of contract if the use of recycled paper was an express or implied term of the agreement. Remedies might include damages for any additional costs or reputational harm, though quantifying this could be challenging (Smith, 2018).
Practical Considerations for QMES
Beyond legal arguments, QMES must consider practical factors as a new student society with limited resources. Pursuing legal action against EcoPrint for the discount or misrepresentation could be costly and time-consuming, potentially outweighing the financial stakes involved. For the discount issue, the difference in cost for 5000 leaflets may not justify litigation, and for the posters, the successful campaign might limit claims for substantial damages. Moreover, as QMES aims to build its professional reputation, maintaining a constructive relationship with EcoPrint could be beneficial for future collaborations. Therefore, negotiation or alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation, might be preferable to resolve these disputes amicably. Indeed, offering to settle for a partial discount or a credit for future orders could align with QMES’s budgetary constraints and long-term goals.
Conclusion
In summary, QMES has plausible legal grounds to challenge EcoPrint on both the withdrawn 40% discount and the issues surrounding the poster order. For the discount, the email assurance from EcoPrint’s sales manager likely constitutes a binding promise, potentially enforceable under promissory estoppel, despite the website update. Regarding the posters, the unilateral rush fee imposition appears unsupported by contract variation principles, and the use of non-recycled paper could amount to negligent misrepresentation or breach of contract. However, the practicalities of litigation, given QMES’s limited resources and reputational priorities, suggest that pursuing negotiation might be more appropriate than formal legal action. Ultimately, QMES should weigh the strength of their claims against the potential costs and benefits of each course of action, ensuring that their decisions align with both legal entitlements and strategic objectives as an emerging student society. This balanced approach will help safeguard their interests while fostering sustainable partnerships.
References
- Adams, A. (2016) Law for Business Students. 9th edn. London: Pearson Education.
- Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177.
- Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) 5 CPD 344.
- Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130.
- Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204.
- Smith, J. (2018) Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 8th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1.
