Answer the Questions
The legal effect of a counter-offer
A counter-offer refers to an offer that is made in response to an initial offer made by the other party when negotiating for an ultimate contract. Arguably, counter-offer is that new offer made in response to the received offer during contracts negotiations. Therefore, according to any viable law, a counter-offer has the effect of terminating or rejecting the initial offer, which cannot be accepted afterwards unless recovered by the offeror. By making a counter-offer, the prior offer is automatically discarded but under the acceptance of the set terms of the counter-offer otherwise there is no contract. Notably, the original promisor has to accept the counter-offer (new offer) before a contract is ratified during a negotiation.
Distinguishing repudiation from revocation
Repudiation
In a contract, one party may be unwilling, or displays such characteristics, which suggest that they are unwilling to carry out their obligations according to the terms of the contract, the aggrieved party has the legal right to terminate the contract and claim repudiation. For instance, when one party to the contract explicitly states that they are not willing or able to perform the contract, repudiation ensues. However, the innocent party to the contract may seek legal redress against the defaulting party and claim for damages. Similarly, if defaulting party repudiates and the innocent party decides not dismiss the contract, but the defaulting party continues repudiating, the innocent party may still terminate the contract on the basis of the sustained repudiation.
Revocation
Revocation occurs when the Offeror takes back or invalidates an offer prior to its acceptance, and the offer breaks as a result. The elementary prerequisite is that a revocation must be communicated to the offeree and be informed that the offer is no longer open to negotiation. Notably, according to most principles of law, a revocation is only effective upon receipt by an offeree, and must happen before acceptance.
Assault and Battery
Assault refers to the act of attempting or threatening to injure another party while battery refers to the act of causing actual harm to another party. For an assault to be ratified, it must be proven that the accused threatened or attempted to batter the other party. Similarly, for a battery to have occurred, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was intentional touching, that the touching must have been offensive, and that the victim did not consent to the touching. Essentially, assault and battery can be sued in tort and the accused are liable to criminal charges if found guilty of either.
However, the bouncer can claim the right to defend himself against the threat or force. The bouncer must prove that the threat was unlawful or could possibly harm him, and that he did not provoke the victim and that he had no reasonable chances of escaping the escalating situation. The bouncer is also permitted by law to use reasonable amount of force while protecting the property or clients of the premises and may argue his actions according to this. Correspondingly, the bouncer may claim that he was performing a duty and authority stipulated by the owner of the club and is permitted by law to use reasonable force when necessary. However, the bouncer should at all-time control his emotions and avoid malicious attacks on victims that may warrant legal redresses. His actions, whatsoever, must only entail a reasonable and necessary degree of force. For instance, in Bruce vs Dyer, the employer was found to be liable for the tortious actions by the employee (bouncer) while carrying his duties leading to the subsequent dismissal of the employee. However, the employer (bar owner) is not liable for any criminal consequences unless was directly involved in the duel that led to the perceived injuries caused on the victim.