Order Description

Draft letter of advice& draft reply to the letter of demand dealing with the allegations in some depth

Part A : The contract with Alpha Electrics Pty Limited (Alpha) is due to expire in 2018. The form of contract entered into between RAGE and Alpha is the same as the contract used in class except clause 20.2 (termination for convenience) has been deleted.
The task:
You are asked to provide a draft letter of advice to RAGE setting out the arguments that can be raised as to why RAGE has discharged its obligation to act in good faith. Please refer to relevant authority in your advice. You may suggest what other facts you may need in order to be more definitive in coming a conclusion

part B: Assume it is November 2017. In the contract between RAGE and Beta Brothers Electrics (Beta) which was entered into on 1 December 2016 clause 20.2 (termination for convenience) exists and RAGE exercises its right under clause 20.2. However clause 20.4 has been deleted. The circumstances of the signing of the 2016 Agreement was that it was the RAGE standard form contract as used in class with the slight amendment with the deletion of clause 20.4. Beta executed the agreement without reference to its lawyers for advice.
The task:
You are asked to prepare a draft reply to the letter of demand dealing with the allegations in some depth. In your reply you need set out the reasoning why you consider the letter of demand to be wrong.