2004 Z.B.

1

From the fact it seems thatArnold has placed an advertisement in the local newspaper stating
that a reward will be given for the safe return of Bessy. In Partridge vs Crittenden it was stated
that newspaper advertisement is an invitation to treat [ITT].so historically newspaper
advertisement is regarded as a ITT therefore it can be said that the advertisement placed by
Arnold in The Daily Mock can be treated as ITT. However in Storer vs MCC it was stated that an
offer is an expression of willingness to enter into a contract on some term and it must be made
with the intention that it will be binding upon acceptance. Here the fact is quite similar to the
famous case Carlil vs Carbolic Smoke Ball where it was stated that if the advertisement show
an certain expression of willingness to enter into a contract then it will be an offer. Again
Gibbons vs Proctor it was stated that the declaration of reward is so certain that it is an offer.
Therefore It can be said that the placement of reward by Arnold has shown certain expression
to enter into a contract therefore it can be regarded as an offer and it is to be regarded as an
unilateral offer where the offer is made to the whole world.


However Edwin asked Arnold to pay more. For this counter offer needs to be consider here. In
Hyde vs Wrench it was stated that if the offeree introduces new term when accepting this is a
counter offer and not an acceptance and there will be no binding contract made between those
parties. Here the original offer is destroyed and free to accept or reject. Therefore it can be said
that Edwin cannot claim the reward from Arnold because there is no binding contract made
between them.
Daniel found Clara and returns it to Arnold. Here It needs to be considered whether there is a
communication of offer and there can be no acceptance without knowledge of an offer. There
can be no meeting of minds if one mind is unaware of the other. That is to say an acceptance
cannot be mirror an offer if the acceptance is made in ignorance of the offer.[ Gibbons vs
Proctor]. Therefore it can be said that Daniel cannot claim the reward because it was clearly
said the reward is only for safe return for Bessy not for Clara. This is well mentioned in Arnold
offer. Therefore Daniel is not entitled to get the reward.

However Arnold placed a small note to withdraw his offer. Now it should consider whether it is possible
to revoke an unilateral offer. The general rule for revocation of offer is that a revocation of offer must
be communicated to the offeree. According to Shue vs USA for unilateral offer, revocation is
communicated using the same channel as it used in original offer. But In Errington vs Errington it was
held that it may not be possible to revoke an unilateral offer when offeree has started performing the
stipulated act. As the parties have started performing the offer therefore it can be said that Arnold
cannot revoke the offer by using this method.


In the meantime Frank got that cow and returned it to Arnold house while he was not in the house.
According to Gibbons vs Proctor, Frank might be entitled to get the reward if he knew that the
offer has been made . The fact is quite similar to the case R vs Clark where the party claiming the reward
had forgotten the offer of reward he at the time gave the information; it was held that he was not
entitled the reward. Therefore if he knew the offer the he might get the reward.