Explore BrainMass

Contract site visit: Letter proof read

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!


Can you please correct the sentences, please re - write the whole letter. Its request to all contractors for site visit. If you want to add few more lines please do so... Please email it as soon as possible. Here is the information.

I have included more instructions to describe the revised scope of work for Temporary Restoration project scheduled to take place in Spring 2013. Supply all supervision, labour, material, consumables, tools, equipment, travel, lodging. In this revised scope of work All FRP siding supply and install is excluded. A portion of the Girts (All sag rods still included). The brick wall is now remaining, just the door is being replaced. Please note the Burner Control room is now included in the revised Scope of work. New Steel members to be painted per Expo Paint specifications. Also touch up of metal that is damaged during delivery. Sand blasting is required for the steel columns that are to be encased in concrete. All existing connections are to be replaced with new ones. Sag rods to be mild steel painted (not hot dipped galvanized). Please take into account that siding may have to be removed and re installed to complete some work, care must be taken to ensure the siding can be re - used. When the site visits are completed, a fully drafted RFP shall be sent to all contractors associated with this project.

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 8:06 am ad1c9bdddf

Solution Preview

Dear Contractors:

Included here are the instructions that describe the revised scope of work for the Temporary Restoration project scheduled to begin during spring 2113 (need specific dates). Your company will be responsible for all supervision of labor, materials required, consumables, tools, equipment, travel, and ...

Solution Summary

The expert determines how to rewrite a letter for clarity to appeal to contractors and engineers.

See Also This Related BrainMass Solution

Application of the Objective Theory of Contracts

You are still working for the City of Bigtown's Counsel, and it seems that your work largely involves shooting down the mayor's "creative" ideas to boost tourism. He is taken with the idea of an advertising campaign developed around auctioning Bigtown on eBay! He thinks that no one will take the auction seriously but that people will come to Bigtown to satisfy their curiosity.

As you and your boss are rolling your eyes at each other, you remember a similar situation - the Pepsi Harrier-Jet case. You offer to provide background

Wall Street Journal, August 9, 1999.
John D.R. Leonard took PepsiCo seriously when one of their "Pepsistuff" commercials made an offer of a Harrier jet, the famous high-tech "jump jet" used by the U.S. Marines. In a TV commercial that aired in 1995, Pepsi jokingly included the Harrier as one of the prizes that could be received with a "mere" 7 million Pepsi points. While that sounds like a lot of points to get from drinking Pepsi products (roughly 190 Pepsis a day for 100 years), the company also allowed customers to purchase points for 10 cents a piece.

Leonard did the math, and discovered that the cost of the 7 million points needed for the jet was a mere $700,000. He then put together a business plan, raised the $700,000 from friends and family, and submitted 15 Pepsi points, the check, and an official order form along with a demand for the Harrier jet.

PepsiCo wrote back, stating: "The Harrier jet in the Pepsi commercial is fanciful and is simply included to create a humorous and entertaining ad. We apologize for any misunderstanding or confusion that you may have experienced and are enclosing some free product coupons for your use."

The free coupons did not satisfy Leonard, who then took PepsiCo to task in court. Finally, on August 5, 1999, a federal judge for the Southern District of New York held that PepsiCo was only joking when it implied in its ad that it was giving away fighter jets. Judge Wood noted that since the jets sell for approximately $23 million each, "no objective person could reasonably have concluded that the commercial actually offered consumers a Harrier jet." Instead, this was a classic example of "a deal too good to be true."

1. What are the four elements of a valid contract?
2. Describe the objective theory of contracts. How does that theory apply to this case?
3.Why do you think the court held that there was not a valid agreement here?
4. Are advertisements generally considered offers? Why or why not?
5. How does this case differ from a reward situation, where a unilateral contract is formed upon completion of the requested act?

View Full Posting Details