3 (a)

An offer is a report of the conditions on which the offeror is ready to be bound.

There are four basic conditions for a valuable offer. Price, delivery date, method of payment
includes the payment date and detail words of the item on offer with a fair report of the
condition.

Here Mr Dick wrote a letter to Mr Harriet, offering to sell the car for 3000 pounds. Mr Dick
has mentioned the price of the item and other details. So it is a valuable offer.

But there is a rule that, in a valid offer- acceptance bond, the acceptance of offeree must be
communicated. An exception for this case that the offeror has gave up with the requirement
of communication of acceptance. The offeror has mentioned about this in his letter.

According to the postal acceptance rule, if the offer is accepted by post, the contract comes
into active at the moment that only the acceptance was posted. This law only affects when
clearly, the parties have in consideration post as a means of acceptance. But in this case Mr
Dick told Mr Harriet in the letter not to bother to reply. That means there is no doubt between
offeror and offeree about the acceptance.

Rules of revocation

An offeror can withdraw an offer before it has been accepted, but the revocation must be
communicated to the offeree, although not necessarily by the offeror. Death of offeror, death
of offeree, rejection, laps of time these are the urgent conditions of revocation.

But here according to the acceptance rule and other laws related with the offer and
acceptance, the offer which is offered by Mr. Dick was a valid one and Mr Dick has failed to
report Mr. Harriet about the revocation of that offer. Due to this offer offered by Mr Dick, Mr.
Harriet turned down another business deal. So we can prove a clear case of breaking offer
towards Mr Dick and he has to pay some penalties to Mr. Harriet.

4.1
A contract is supposed to move towards into continuation when taking of an offer has been
communicated to the offeror by the offeree and there has been deliberation bargained-for
made by a promise and performance.

In this case it is a unilateral contract. Unilateral contract is a type of contract in which the
offeree accepts the offer by performing an act which specifies their agreement.

Here the news paper quoted that “ an offer to harry gobble. We undertake to pay the sum of
10,000 pounds to the charity of your choice for every goal you score in tomorrow’s match
between England and Germany”. By the unilateral contract law it’s a valid offer. Mr harry
gobble accepted this offer by performed the mentioned act.

The refusing points of the company are

(a) The announcement in the newspaper was not intended to give rise to an enforceable
contract.
My points; but according to the unilateral law it is a valid contract and an offer. But
the problem is the company didn’t mention about the payment method and other
details or sources. That will be a big problem for us. But they mentioned about the
particular amount of payment.

(b) There was no consideration for the newspaper’s promise to make the donation to the
chosen charity.
My points; from the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, we can understand that the
promise of the company through an offer will be considered as a valid contract.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 Court of Appeal

“A Newspaper advert placed by the defendant stated:-

£100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who
contracts the influenza after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks
according to the printed directions supplied with each ball...

£1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, shewing our sincerity in the matter."

Mrs Carlill purchased some smoke balls and used them according to the directions and
caught flu. She sought to claim the stated £100 reward.

The defendant raised the following arguments in defence:

1. The advert was a sales puff and lacked intent to be an offer.
2. It is not possible to make an offer to the world.
3. There was no notification of acceptance.
4. The wording was too vague to constitute an offer since there was no stated time limit
as to catching the flu.
5. There was no consideration provided since the 'offer' did not specify that the user of
the balls must have purchased them.

Held:

The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Carlill was entitled to the reward as the advert
constituted an offer of a unilateral contract which she had accepted by performing the
conditions stated in the offer. The court rejected all the arguments put forward by the
defendants for the following reasons:

1. The statement referring to the deposit of £1,000 demonstrated intent and therefore
it was not a mere sales puff.
2. It is quite possible to make an offer to the world.
3. In unilateral contracts there is no requirement that the offeree communicates an
intention to accept, since acceptance is through full performance.
4. Whilst there may be some ambiguity in the wording this was capable of being
resolved by applying a reasonable time limit or confining it to only those who caught flu
whilst still using the balls.
5. The defendants would have value in people using the balls even if they had not been
purchased by them directly.”
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=45
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co,

Here we can use the following points which are used by the court, against the news
paper company.
1. Company didn’t mention about the details of the payment and other sources.
That will be a bad point for us
2. Company mentioned the amount of payment and that will be possible for the
company.
3. According to the unilateral law it is a valid contract and the offeree is not required
to acknowledge his acceptance.
4. The offer which is posted by the company clearly mentioned about the agreement
points like match details, time of match, name of offeree, task of the offeree and
amount for the each task.

The all refusing points of the company are very weak. According to the judgement of
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co,,we got one bad point about the payment ,but there
is good possibility to get the money from the company.

REFERENCES
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co[3
Gibson v Manchester City Council[5
Powell v Lee (1908) 99 L.T. 284; Robophone Facilities Ltd v. Blank [1966] 3 All E.R. 128
G.H. Treitel, The Law of Contract, 10th edn, p.8.
Lopez v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 118 Cal. App. 4th 1224 (2004).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=45