Law of Contracts

Question: Discuss about the Law of Contracts. Answer: Step 1 In this case the legal issue in question is that whether there has been a formation of valid contract between the burger company and the two claimants Johnathon and Amanda according to the rule of offer and acceptance required to constitute a contract. Step 2 In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Court of Appeal [1893] 1 QB 256; [1892] EWCA Civ 1 the defendant produced Carbolic Smoke Ball which were made to prevent the users from getting affected by influenza and other similar disease. The company has published an advertisement that they will reward 100 pounds to any person who gets affected by influenza or any such disease after taking using the smoke ball provided by the company for a specified period. The company deposited 1000 pounds in a separate bank out to show their sincerity towards the matter. With respect to the advertisement the claimant Mr. Carlill bought the smoke ball and used them according to the instructions and subsequently was affected by flu and made a claim for the reward. The smoke ball company refused to pay the rewards and was ultimately sued by the claimant. In this landmark case the court ruled that the claimant was entitled to get the rewards from the company. The court further provided that there existed a unilateral agreement which comprised the offer through an advertisement by the defendant and the acceptance by the claimant through the performance of the conditions of the offer. The plaintiff claimed that advertisement was a clear offer, as this was an offer in rem as soon as the offeree committed the act mentioned in the offer it let to the formation of the contract and the terms of the offer were clear to constitute a valid offer. The defendant claimed that the advertisement was unclear and vague to constitute an offer, there was no consideration in the offer and there was no communication of acceptance. In relation to the offer the court held that an offer can also be made to the world at large. The court held that the advertisement made by the company constituted an offer as it was evident by the action of the company (deposit of 1000 pounds in a separate bank account for the purpose) that it was not a sales puff. The court is this case also ruled that the language of the offer in this case was appropriately clear to make it enforceable. The court in this case ruled that even though according to a general rule it is required to communicate the acceptance to the offeror may opt out of the need for a notification expressly or implied as he has done in this case. In this case the offeror made it clear that the offeree did not have to communicate acceptance to offeror and the acceptance can be done through the performance of a particular action (use of smoke ball). With respect to consideration the court held that the consideration in this case was the problems suffered by the claimant through using the company product according to the direction of mentioned in the offer. Moreover the defendant had received proper benefits as people used more of their products due to the advertisement (Lambiris Griffin, 2016). According to the principles of revocation of an offer, an offer can be revoked any time through direct or indirect communication of the the notice of revocation by the offeror before an acceptance is made. This principle was discussed broadly in the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) LR 5 CPD 344 Common Pleas Div where the court held that revocation requires communication. Step 3 Applying the lea gal principles discussed in step 2 it can be confirmed that advertisement made by the burger company comprised of a valid offer. This can be ascertained because the terms of the offer were clear. Although the terms of the offer stated limited time with respect to its validity, it was not too vague to challenge the existence of a valid offer. The intention and consideration with respect to the contract in this case are already unchallenged and it is deemed that they exist. According to the principles of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co it can be analyzed that only if the offeror has made it clear impliedly or expressly that abiding by the terms of the offer will constitute a valid acceptance, only than acceptance of that offer could be made in this form. It was made clear by the offer that acceptance of the offer would only be made when the winning ticket is communicated to the head office of the company. Applying the legal principles of revocation of an offer discussed in step 2, it can be analyzed that the company had the right to withdraw the offer any time before the communication of acceptance was made to them. This had to be done by the company by directly or indirectly communicating the revocation to the offerees. The company did so by making radio and televisions advertisement along with publishing the notice of renovation at their head office. In the case of Amanda it can be analyzed that although Amanda committed the actions according to the terms of that contract before she could actually make the acceptance by showing the ticket to the head office the notice of revocation of the offer was made to her as she read the notice hung on the head office reception. Therefore, there was no contract between Amanda and the company and she is not entitled to get the car. It is to be noted in this situation that it is irrelevant whether or not she bought the burgers herself. In the case of Johnathon it can be analyzed that his purchase of 25 burgers and redemption of the tokens for the winning tickets did not account to an acceptance of the offer. This can be asserted because the offer clearly stated that acceptance would only be made when the winning ticket is communicated to the offeree. According to the legal principles discussed in Step 2 revocation of an offer can be made any time before an acceptance to that offer is made, such revocation can be direct or indirect. In this case the claimant presumed that he did not hear the radio and television news related to the offer, and when he reached the head office he was not able to see the notice presented their due to the crowd. It can be asserted in this case that the revocation was neither direct nor indirectly was communicated to Johnathon. Therefore without having proper notice of the revocation it can be held that the presentation of the winning ticket by Johnathon at the counter accounted to the fo rmation of a contract. However the company had already accepted the claim of another person before such communication of acceptance was made by Jonathon therefore the offer ceased to exist as it was clear in the terms of the offer that the company intended to provide only one care to a winning ticket. Step 4 Thus in this case it can be concluded that neither Amanda nor Johnathon are eligible to claim the car from the burger company as revocation through notice was made to the former claimant before her acceptance and in case of the latter the offer did not exist as it was already accepted by another offeree. References: Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) LR 5 CPD 344 Common Pleas Div Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Court of Appeal [1893] 1 QB 256; [1892] EWCA Civ 1 Lambiris, M. Griffin, L. (2016). First Principles of Business Law (latest ed.). Sydney.