Traditional project management (TPM) involves very disciplined planning methods where tasks are completed in an orderly sequence, requiring planning done upfront. Given that modern IT projects have elusive requirements that are subject to change, the traditional approach would not face all challenges of the majority of projects that involve a software development component. An alternative approach, Agile Project Management (APM), has emerged in the IT industry as a response to the software development projects demands. APM is a highly iterative and adaptive process. Risk management is more significant in APM than in TPM because agile projects imply higher risks. Agile management is change-driven and obstacles may rise at any step along the way. It should be open and constantly adapting. APM would better answer the need for modern IT projects to have a dynamic risk plan.
To make a contract valid, an offeror makes an offer setting out terms of contract, clearly and certainly, and the Offeree accepts the offer, indicating that he is willing to be bound by terms of the contract (jones 2017) The contract needs to be clear and unambiguous, Guthing v Lynn(1931) used the word ‘lucky’ which was considered too vague hence making the contract invalid. To clarify, in this case Kanye, the car salesman is the offeror and you, Kim, is the offeree.
Kim’s part performance of handing over the envelope of cash prevents the offer from being withdrawn, causing an implied obligation on kanye. Errington V Errington and woods (1952), shows that one parties performance of act, paying the mortgage, does not allow the other party to revoke the offer
Acceptance may be defined as ‘an unconditional assent, communicated by the offeree to the offeror, to all terms of the offer, made with the intention of accepting’ (Duxbury 2015). In the case where offer and acceptance are difficult to state, courts will look at the correspondence (Jones 2017). For it to be valid, firstly it must be unconditional, the terms of the acceptance must match the terms of the offer exactly; and communicated to offeror, or else a counteroffer is constructed (Jones 2017). In the case of Hyde V Wrench. It was agreed that there was no contract- the original offer was destroyed when the counter off was made. Moreover, In the case of Brogden V metropolitan, altering an offer made a new offer.
It could be argued that the advert lacked intent to offer, nor was there was no notification of acceptance. However, Kim providing Kanye with an envelope of money demonstrates intent, portraying acceptance through performance. A similar situation is exemplified by Carlill V Carbolic Smokeball co (1893).
