COMMERCIAL LAW (BRIDGING PROGRAMME)Name of Course: Bachelor of Business in Economics andManagement Name of Institution: Murdoch University AustraliaName of Student: Dinnie Dzulqarnaen Bin Johari(33224225)Name of Lecturer: Daniel Theyagu Analysis (40%) Research (30%) Organisation (15%) Presentation (15%) Class Assignment for Business Law 1a) Leila has advertised a missinglocket in a local newspaper. Julie who has read the advertisement and found thelocket returned to Leila. Leila refuses to reward Julie stating that she shouldhave called before returning the locket. The legal issues in this question arewhether Julie is entitled to the reward after returning the locket withoutcalling first. Most advertisements are calledInvitation to treat (ITT) (Columbia Law Review,1925) this is where one party invites another to make an offer, but ITT isnot an offer. An advertisement becomes an offer when it has a reward,considerations, and instructions to be met before getting rewarded (Lindsay E ,2000). The newspaper advertisement has to be clear and advertised to thepublic.
Leila did not put up a simpleadvertisement like the ones we see offering goods for sale but made aUnilateral offer through the newspaper advertisement (Ibid) Her advertisementis not a bilateral offer as it was made public and not a specific group ofpeople. Unilateral offer is an offer made public to anyone who has read or seenthe advertisement. A Unilateral offer isseen within the legal system (Corbin, 1917) and therefore Leila obligations with other parties who may try toaccept the offer of finding the locket.Therefore, the offer she has madeon the newspaper is Unilateral.
- Thesis Statement
- Structure and Outline
- Voice and Grammar
This makes Leila the offeror andthe other party accepting it by performing the act of finding the lost goldchain and locket and following the terms stated, making them the offeree. In the case of Carlill v CarbolicSmoke Ball Co 1893 1 QB 256, Carbolic Smoke Ball company made a newspaper advertisement aboutrewarding of £100 to anyone who gets the flu after having used the ballaccording to the printed directions supplied. The company also stated that adeposit of £1000 was made to Alliance Bank, showing that they were serious. Mrs. Carlill caught the flu afterusing the balls as instructed. She made her claim to which the company tried tochallenge that the offer was not serious. In court, it was held that CarbolicSmoke Ball company was bound by contract to pay Mrs. Carlill £100 as thecompany had made a unilateral offer through the advertisement.
From that example, we see thatLeila will have to pay the reward of $50 to any person meeting the actionableterms of her offer. Her offer was simple andunderstood by all that by finding her lost locket is an intention of acceptingthe offer and returning to her fulfill the offer. Unlike the case of Harvey vFacey 1893 UKPC 1, Harvey sent a telegram to Face asking if he would sell aBumper hall pen and the lowest price for it.
Facey replied that the lowestwould be £900. Harvey replied agreeing at the cost. It was held that there wasno contract made between the parties involved. Facey did not answer thequestions with an acceptance of selling the pen but only stating the price.There was no intention by Facey for it to be an offer of £900. Termination of an offer can alsohappen through a valid revocation of the offer by the offeror (Contract Law,n.
d.) After Julie had found the locket,she went to collect her reward at 1 Titanic Drive, as stated in theadvertisement. Leila refuses to rewardJulie.
Leila told Julie that she should have called first before returning thelocket. Leila’s retraction is invalid because the terms were met, to find thelocket and return it to the owner. In Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D463, the defendant offered to sell his house and promised to keep the offeruntil Friday. On Thursday, the defendant accepted an offer from a third party.He asked a friend to inform the claimant that the offer was withdrawn. Fromhearing the news, claimant went to defendant house on Friday morning asking toaccept his offer instead. It was held that the offer was withdrawn.
There wasno contract between parties and therefore no obligation for the defendant tokeep the offer open as there was no consideration or promise. The offeror wasfree to withdraw the offer any time until there is a deposit or an acceptanceof the offer made. For Leila to withdraw the offer,the law states that the withdrawal must be made so using the same medium as theadvertisement (Hussaini, D. n.d.)and the public or Julie in this case, must bepresented stating this withdraw before the deed was done.
Julie has already found the locketand even return it to the owner before Leila telling her to call beforehand. We can argue that in theadvertisement, there were no instructions to return the locket to 1 TitanicDrive neither there were instructions to call when the item is found. Leila’sadvertisement only states her information to be contacted. We can also arguethat the advertisement was not clear, but it is understood that andadvertisement stating lost and found item with a reward when return to theowner by any means, regardless calling beforehand or returning to the addressstated. Therefore, base on the argumentabove, Leila is at a disadvantaged position as her advertisement is an offerwhich allows anyone including Julie to accept the offer following the terms. Assuch if Julie were to her, she might succeed if she can prove that theadvertisement had no instructions to call if item was found. In Leila’s case,withdrawal/revocation of the offer must be presented to officially, the verbalconversation does not legally see the offer as withdrawn.
1b) Although she did not see theadvertisement first hand her knowledge of the offer from a third party is valid(The Acceptance, n.d.) Similarly, in Gibbons vProctor 1891 64 LT 594. The claimant had information which would be heldwith the arrest of a 3rd party Claimant told information to a colleague.Defendant posted an offer of a reward, requesting the information claimant hadprovided. Claimant became aware of the offer from colleagues. Defendant’s offeridentified as having been accepted when Defendant received the relevantinformation, at the time at which the offer was accepted, Claimant was aware ofthe reward.
The argument that silence cannotamount to acceptance (Silence asAcceptance in the Formation of Contracts, 1920) as in Felthouse v Bindley EWHC CP J 35. In this case, a nephew offeredto purchase a horse from his uncle and said that if he did not receive aresponse by the weekend, he would consider it as accepted. The horse was sold atan auction by mistake. They were unable to claim the horse as there was nocontract between the nephew and uncle. In this case, silent is not consenting,and you cannot have silence as acceptances of the offer in contract law. In the current case, not hold truein a unilateral contract so Julie’s actions could have been consideredacceptance of Leila’s offer had she been aware of it. 2) The legal issue in here is whether Adam can sue Edwin fornot fulfilling the contract of selling the vintage car at an agreed price of$500,000.
A contract is abinding agreement. A few requirements for a contract to be legally binding areconsensus ad idem (a meeting of minds), consideration of both parties,intention to create legal relations, capacity to contract and lastly freelyconsent to the agreement. Edwin, as a dealerin vintage cars, has received an offer from Adam of $500,000. The 1925 RollsRoyce was an Invitation to Treat (ITT) by Edwin to anyone willing to buy. As adealer, similar to a salesman, it is understood that the ITT is for anyone thatsees the car, may make an offer to purchase it. Similar to Fisher v Bell 19611 QB 394, a knife was displayed in a shop. I was illegal to sell a weapon butit was held in court that is was merely an ITT.
The channel of the ITT was not mentioned inthe question, if Edwin had a store of his own, it would be a Bilateral Contractbut if it was published in social media, advertisement or a poster, it will bea Unilateral Contract. Thus, making Edwin the Offeree and Adam purchasing thecar the Offeror.The case shows aBilateral Contract with two executory consideration in the form of a promise.The two promises are the Adam pays $500,000 to Edwin and Edwin sells thevintage car to Adam.
The considerationis therefore executory on both sides. This I also knew as ContractualObligations. Edwin has failedto perform his contractual obligation once he refused to sell the car. Terms ofthe contract were laid down by the parties involved. With a Breach ofContract, there are some remedies available to Adam. Adam May claim fordamages. Damages is a monetary compensation to the innocent party for the losssuffered.
He may also Terminate theContract, an order of Specific Performance which will force Edwin to fulfillhis obligation or a Prohibitory injunction which prevents Edwin from sellingthe car.In Adam’ssituation, the recommended remedy would be to claim an order of SpecificPerformance. In Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 Chancery Division, defendantoffer to sell a farm at £1,000 but a counter offer was mad. Defendant refusedbut was brought an action for Specific Performance. Unfortunately, there was nocontract made. Counter offer destroyed the original offer therefore no longeropen to the offered. Adam is purchasinga 1925 Rolls Royce, which is a vintage car making it rare and hard to come by.If it was late model Mercedes Benz, he might be able to terminate the contractor claim damages for breaching of contract.
Prohibitory Injunction preventsEdwin from selling to anyone else, but it does not stop him from refusing tosell to Adam himself. Adam will not beable to find and purchase another 1925 Rolls Royce. The car Adam was buyingfrom Edwin is a unique property, and therefore Damages and Prohibitory Injunctionare inadequate.
Express terms are the rights and duties from both theemployee and employer. These terms that can be expressly and specificallystated, be it orally or in written. Implied terms are words or provisions that were intended tobe in a contract.
This also means implied terms are not expressly stated in thecontract. Moreover, this advertisement was made to the world at largeand Leila would not know who will take the offer, which means it is an unilateraloffer and thus, anyone who finds it and returns it is deemed as an acceptance ofthe offer. References1. http://www.gridlaw.com/silence-does-not-amount-to-acceptance-of-an-offer-so-no-legally-binding-contract-was-in-place/2.
Contract Law – Offer & Acceptance.(n.d.). Retrieved June 10, 2017, from http://www.allaboutlaw.
Offer. Invitation to Treat.(1925). Columbia Law Review,25(6), 838. doi:10.2307/11138874.
Harvey v Facey. (n.d.).
Retrieved June 10,2017, from http://casebrief.me/casebriefs/harvey-v-facey/5. Hussaini, D. (n.d.).
Contracts – Elements OfA Contract. Retrieved June 10, 2017, fromhttp://law.jrank.org/pages/5690/Contracts-Elements-Contract.html6.
Silence as Acceptance in the Formation ofContracts. (1920). Harvard Law Review,33(4), 595.doi:10.
2307/13280407. The Acceptance. (n.
d.). Retrieved June 10,2017, fromhttps://saylordotorg.github.io/text_law-for-entrepreneurs/s12-03-the-acceptance.html