The court was clearly accepted by Superdrug when it committed to purchase annual quantities of product from the manufacturer. With respect to the issue of the buyer`s authority, the court held that there was nothing in Superdrug`s evidence to show that the complainant was inappropriate invoking the buyer`s confirmation as binding on the company. There is therefore a theoretical basis for the idea that an agreement on terms in an e-mail, whether formally declared or not, could constitute a legally binding agreement, and this theoretical basis was born in the real world by law. The applicant argued that the agreement also includes the obligation for the defendant to acquire a minimum amount of USD 1.3 million during that period, which the defendant disputed on the ground that they had not committed to purchase products unless it submitted a specific order. The defendant asserted that Superdrug`s terms and conditions of purchase did not indicate that they were appropriate to purchase minimum quantities or that they were related to such conditions if an employee accepted them. But wait, it`s going to get worse. The exchange of e-mail may also inadvertently modify existing contracts. This was the case in another case in New York, where the court found that the written employment contract of an officer who was malfunctioning had been altered by an email exchange between him and the president of the principal company of the management. These emails outlined a proposed new role for the leader within the organization.
The executive „accepts (the) proposal with total enthusiasm and enthusiasm…“ The first argument they can make is that there is no legally binding contract between you. You say that all you had was an exchange of emails where they inquire about your products. Despite the fact that the e-mail exchange agreement was entered into, it was found that it was sufficiently clear to create a liability of $1.3 million on the part of the defendant. This underlines the risks that companies face in writing when considering contractual terms in any form, and that a legally binding contract has a number of components that the court will objectively judge to determine its validity. This case also serves as a warning to employers to make workers understand their responsibility for the activity on behalf of their employer and the risks they do not pose.