(Basic)? Contract law question, help please!

Anyone?

.

First of all, I'm not a Law student. I study international business and modern languages, but have to do a Law Module as part of my second year!
Basically I understand the content relatively well on its own, but don't know here to start/how to know and apply what's relevant in certain cases. Could someone help me with the following question taken from a past paper: (May seem really easy to you law students!)

Bright cab Ltd (BC) is a taxi company which decides to renew its fleet of vehicles. It agrees with Energy Vehicles Ltd in a document signed on 1st March, that it will purchase 15 new taxis from Energy Vehicles Ltd for delivery on 1st July. Energy Vehicles Ltd will supply the taxis, according to the document, "on credit terms". Bright cab ltd and Energy vehicles Ltd have now fallen out about the credit terms and Bright can ltd are sueing for breach of contract. Will they win? (Explain your answer)

Anyone help?

Thanks :-)

Right, credit terms are usually given by the seller to the buyer. Seller here being Energy Vehicles. According to your scenario, EV have not respected their own terms and BC is suing?
There is no doubt that a contract has been formed [agreement, consideration, intention to create legal relations: deed-signed document]
You'll want to research on breach of contract and remedies.
BC is most likely to make a claim for damages or specific performance.
Back your argument with case law!
Sorry that's all I know, hope it helps!

1) Surprised that you are sure there is a contract, "on credit terms" seems very uncertain to me. Of course, it might be different if the parties had contracted this way in the past and the term could be given meaning from their prior course of dealing. If not then as I said above it is similar to Scammell v Ouston where "on hire purchase terms" was held to be so uncertain as to prevent their being a contract at all.

2) If there is a contract, how do you know that EV 'have not respected their own terms'? There is nothing in the scenario that says so, apart from the fact that they are being sued for breach. (However, I expect that this is just an accidental omission in the question, and that what is meant is that they are refusing to supply any taxis).

3) There is nothing in the scenario that suggests there is a deed, which you mentioned in your post. A signed document is not necessarily (or even usually) a deed. Not, of course, that the absence of a deed makes a difference in a contract for the sale of goods.

4) The OP's scenario's question was 'will they win? (explain your answer)' so he probably doesn't need a discussion of remedies.

Sorry for being critical - bored at work