Engineering project management Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Engineering project management - Assignment Example A large number of employees would increase the rate at which the work will be done and increasing chances of completing the project on time (Panneerselvam & Senthilkumar 2009). The contractor may also employ other technologies and equipment instead of using manpower. The use of machines instead of humans to do certain tasks is normally advantageous since the tasks can be done at high rates there by increasing the chances of completing the project on time (Nagarajan 2007). The contractor may also divide the project into small and more manageable units, and each unit should have a goal to achieve. As for the case of the company, the organization should give additional funding to contract so as to fund the additional works as well as fund additional manpower and/or any new equipment acquired for the task. Another solution that might help the company meet its aims is that the organization may consider subcontracting sections of the order while it is still waiting for the new equipment to be installed. (Word count: 248) Question 2: Safety and Health ramifications and Time scale a) Time scale ramifications Due to safety concerns associated with asbestos, the scope of the project is likely to be changed (removal of the existing duct and its contents). The changing of the scope would mean that other constrains such as time and cost will be adjusted accordingly (Kanda 2011). This means that the project deliverable (installing a new machine’s base) will not be produced on time. The consequence of not completing this project on time is dire to the company since the organization might lose an important order, and due to the cost investment made on the new equipment the organization might be forced to close down. This means that delaying the installation of the base of the new machine is not an option for the organization. b) Safety and Health ramifications Employees are amongst the most important elements for organizations; therefore, there health should be made pri ority (CCH 2009). In addition, safety of environments in which employees work must conform to occupational safety and health standards (Lingard & Rowlinson 2005). Compromising the health of workers by making them work alongside these asbestos ducts would affect health, and consequently their productivity will also be affected (CCH 2009). The organization may also risk being closed down for not following occupational safety standards and regulation. (Word count: 202) Question 3: Consequences of the organization following strict time scales regardless of the presence asbestos a) Consequences If the organization decides to meet the strict time scale without regarding the presence asbestos, the consequences may be dire to the organization. First, as earlier mentioned the employees of the organization may be exposed asbestos to limits more than those specified by occupational health and safety authorities of the region in the organization is operating. The result of this is that the empl oyees may contract heart and lung related ailments, which may in turn affect their productivity (CCH 2009). This means that the organization may fail to meet its current production levels as well as the sales target. Another consequence of following the strict deadline without regarding the presence of asbestos is that the organization may be closed down by the safety and health occupation authority in the area in which it is operating for violating the recommended threshold values of the asbestos.

Australian contract law problem question Case Study

Australian contract law problem question - Case Study Example The offer may be oral, written or implied from conduct. Offers are of two kinds: a specific offer is made to a specific offeree. No one else can accept it. 'If you propose to make a contract with A, then B cannot substitute himself for A without your consent and to your disadvantage, securing to himself all the benefit of the contract': see Pollock, CB, Boulton v Jones (1857)1. A general offer can be accepted by anyone, and usually without prior notification of acceptance: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke ball Co. (1893)2. It was found in Carlil that there was: 'an offer made to all the world'; 'to ripen into a contract with anybody who comes forward and performs the condition'; and that 'as notification of acceptance is required for the benefit of the person who makes the offer, the person who makes the offer may dispense with notice to himself if he thinks it desirable to do so.' In the given situation, Elaine's statement 'I will give that bike to anyone who can fix my neck', was clearly a general offer. However, neither it was shown that Kramer has validly communicated his acceptance to Elaine nor it was shown that the latter has dispensed with the notice of acceptance. Clearly, there was no valid and enforceable contract between Elaine and Kramer considering that there was no agreement between the parties. However, it can be argued that acceptance may be done by positive conduct of the offeree as long as the acceptance must be active and that there must be some positive act by the offeree: Felthouse v Bindley (1862)3. Hence, Kramer may argue that by massaging Elaine, he has communicated his acceptance by positive conduct to Elaine. Furthermore, a valid offer has certain characteristics: certainty (a promise to pay an extra 15 or 10 buy another horse if a horse 'proves lucky to me' is too vague to amount loan offer: Guthing v Lynn [1831])4 and communication (an offer must be communicated to the offeree before it can be accepted.) Thus, if a seaman helps to navigate a ship home without informing the owners in advance, he cannot insist on payment, since the owners have not had notice of his offer, and, therefore, no opportunity to accept or reject it: Taylor v Laird (1856)5. Thus, in the given situation, the promise 'I will give that bike to anyone who can fix my neck' lacks the requirement of certainty. Such promise is similarly too vague as the promise to pay an extra 15 or 10 buy another horse if a horse 'proves lucky to me' to amount to a loan offer: Guthing v Lynn [1831]) In several cases, it has been ruled that preliminary statement may not amount to an offer. An invitation to treat which is a statement that is intended to elicit an offer from someone else has been ruled to have no legal force as the offer it elicits can be accepted or not without obligation: Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979).6 Moreover, a statement of the price at which one is prepared to consider a selling a piece of land or any communication of information in the course of negotiations is a mere preliminary statement which were held not to be an offer. In the given situation, it can be argued that Elaine's statement was a mere preliminary statement which does not constitute a valid offer. Moreover, another requirement in the creation of a valid and enforceable contract is an intention to create legal relations. In an agreement between friends in a domestic arrangements, there is a presumption