IntroductionIn order for one to decide whether a contract is
formed between two parties, there are certain requirements to be
fulfilled. However, just because the parties have made an
agreement, this does not necessarily mean that it is legally
enforceable. In particular courts will look for an offer by one
party that has been unequivocally accepted by the other
party.[footnoteRef:1] [1: Reference to: R Stone, The Modern Law of
Contract (8th edn Routledge-Cavendish, Taylor & Francis
e-Library, 2009) 3]
In the case of Eurymedon, there is a clear breakdown on what is
the essential requirement to form a valid and binding contract. As
far as Contract Law is concern, the elements which vital and
significant to it formation would be element such as an offer, an
acceptance, consideration and the intention to create legal
relations. The courts will consider the contract valid when all
four parts of a valid contract have been established.The gist and
crux of this question falls on the formation of contract. The
parties that we are required to advise is David on his contractual
liability with the other parties, whether he is bound by his
promise to pay the reward of 1000 to his offeree; Peter, Hannah,
Jonathan, Richard and Sheeba who safely return his cats.Davids
offerThe courts have traditionally drawn a distinction between an
offer and an invitation to treat. Sometimes a person will wish
simply to open negotiations, rather than making an offer, which
will lead immediately to a contract on acceptance.[footnoteRef:2]
The courts refer to such a preliminary communication as an
invitation to treat.[footnoteRef:3] [2: Reference to: C Turner,
Unlocking Contract Law (3rd edn Routledge, Oxon 2013) 13] [3:
Reference to: E McKendrick, Contract Law Text, Cases, And Materials
(4th edn OUP, Oxford 2010) 54]
In this question, the offeror, David who has three pairs of cats
which he trains for stage performance had eventually escaped when
he was conducting a rehearsal for the upcoming competition due to a
sudden thunder. Therefore, to enable him to find his lost cats, he
placed an advertisement in the Daily Bungle, which is probably a
local newspaper, offering a reward for the safe return of his award
winning Calico Tortoise Shell cats. To decide whether the
advertisement which David placed would be considered as an offer or
an invitation to treat would depend on whether it is an
advertisement for a unilateral contract or bilateral contract.
According to the information stated, it should be a unilateral
contract as the advertisement David placed is a promise for an act
and he is the only party who makes the promise. The general rule
applicable to advertisement is an invitation to treat. In the case
of Patridge v Crittenden, the court held that the defendant was not
making an offer but an invitation to treat as the advertisement was
the starting point of any negotiations that would occur once a
person reading it responded with their enquiry about the
purchase.[footnoteRef:4] Therefore, Davids advertisement would be
an invitation to treat if he isnt offering any reward. This is
because the exception to the general rule is that advertisements
for unilateral contracts, such as those offering a reward for a
certain performance, which is a promise for an act are generally
considered by the courts to be offers. In the case of Carlill v
Carbolic Smoke Balls, the court ruled that the advertisement in
this case should be treated as an offer as contracts like that are
usually accepted without further negotiations and it was held to be
an offer to the world at large and there will be acceptance when a
person performed the condition.[footnoteRef:5] The situation of
David is similar to the facts in the case of Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke Balls as he stated in his advertisement that there will be a
reward of 1000 for the safe return of his cats and this is a
promise for an act. Therefore, the advertisement which David made
would be an offer instead of invitation to treat as it demonstrates
an intention to be bound and invites no further negotiations. [4:
Reference to: Patridge v Crittenden [1986] 1 WLR 1204] [5:
Reference to: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1QB 256,
Court of Appeal]
David against Peter The first issue which arises between David
and Peter is that whether Peter accepted the offer made by David.
Peter, Davids friend found Nimmie in the park when he was jogging,
he decided to take it back home and keep it for few days before he
takes it to Davids house. Peter would have noticed Davids
advertisement as he wrote a note to David stating that 1000 is not
sufficient and he wants 1500 instead after he found Nimmie. In the
case of Hyde v Wrench, the court held that if the offeree only
accepts part of the terms of the offer, and subsequently introduces
new terms, a counter-offer has been made and as such, the previous
offer is struck off and is incapable of subsequent
acceptance.[footnoteRef:6] Therefore, Peters response is a
counter-offer instead of requesting for further information as in
Stevenson v McLean, the court held that a request for information
was to be regarded only as an enquiry expecting an answer from the
offeror, it was not a specific rejection.[footnoteRef:7] What Peter
did was rejecting the original offer made by David, making it no
longer open to acceptance as new terms and conditions are added.
Moreover, he wouldnt be making a counter-offer if he doesnt know
anything about the reward. [6: Reference to: Hyde v Wrench [1840] 3
Beav 334, 49 ER 132 (Rolls Court)] [7: Reference to: Stevenson,
Jacques & Co. v McLean [1880]5 QBD 346 (QB)]
Besides that, an agreement is not binding unless it is supported
by consideration, it must be something of value that is given in
return for anothers promise. However consideration only needs to be
sufficient, it need not be adequate.[footnoteRef:8] There is
consideration between David and Peter as both parties are acquiring
a benefit at a fixed cost of another, David will be getting his
cat, whilst losing 1000, whereas Peter would be getting his reward
while losing a cat. The moment when Peter retuned Nimmie due to her
sons allergic to cats, there should be an intention to create legal
relationship as offer and acceptance had been established. [8:
Reference to: Thomas v Thomas [1842]2 Q.B. 851, 114 E.R. 330]
The question arises whether Peter is entitled to the reward of
1000 since he did satisfy the condition of the advertisement and
there are contractual liabilities between him and David? However,
he would not be able to claim the reward because the counter-offer
of 1500 he made had stuck off the original offer made by David.
Thus, it is submitted that Peter will get nothing if David did not
agree to the new offer of 1500 made by him.
David against HannahThere is no contractual liability formed
between David and Hannah. This is because Hannah inadvertently
returned the wrong cat, Simmie to David instead of Timmie, which
leads her failed in accepting David offer. Therefore, she is not a
potential offeree. This is because the offer made by David is the
safe return of the six cats as stated on his advertisement, to
enable to accept his offer, Hannah have to return the right cat to
David. Following the case of Thomas v Thomas, the court held that
consideration need not to be adequate but it must be sufficient,
they are not concerned with whether one side of a contractual
agreement has paid too much or too little for something, it doesnt
affect the validity of the contract.[footnoteRef:9] Therefore,
there is consideration made by Hannah as she took Timmie home and
feeds him and also incurred 20 when she makes her trip to deliver
the pet order to David, there is detriment suffered by her.
However, although there is an exist of consideration between David
and Hannah, without the acceptance of an offer, a legally binding
contract would not be formed. [9: Ibid.]
The question which has to be satisfied is will Hannah still be
able to claim the reward if she returned the wrong cat? If she is
not entitled to the reward, can she claim the 20 back which she
incurred? Since there is no contractual liability between David and
Hannah, it is submitted that Hannah will not be entitled for the
reward because she didnt fulfil the necessary offer. If Hannah
would want to recover the money she incurred for her
part-performance in Davids offer, she can pursue a contractual
claim or bring a restitutionary claim which is known as quantum
meruit but can claim no more than the money she
incurred.[footnoteRef:10] A claim for quantum meruit is a claim for
work done but no payment has been received and cannot be obtained
under a contract, which claimants can claim a reasonable price for
their performance.[footnoteRef:11] However, it can be argued by
David that the performance which Hannah did was not capable to the
offer he made as she returned the wrong cat, therefore he wouldnt
need to pay for the 20 which Hannah incurred. [10: Reference to:
Planche v Colburn [1831]8 Bing 14] [11: Reference to: D Rahnavard,
Course Note Contract Law (1st edn Hodder Education, Oxon 2012)
175]
David against JonathanKnowledge of the offer of a reward is
necessary in order for there to be acceptance and a legally binding
contract even if that is not the primary motivation for the
performance. In Williams v Carwardine, the court held that there
can be a contract with any person who performed the necessary
conditions in an advertisement, all that was necessary to fulfil
the contract was that one knew about the reward before giving the
information.[footnoteRef:12] On the fact in Jonathans situation, he
did found Davids cat, Minnie, and safely returned it to David,
which would have enabled him to claim the reward in a much later
state. However, although he did satisfy all the conditions of
Davids offer, yet, the thing is he didnt read the advertisement
placed by David in Daily Bungles. In the case of Fitch v Snedaker,
the court held that a person who gave information without any
knowledge of the reward cannot claim the reward.[footnoteRef:13]
Therefore, he is probably not entitled to the reward since he knows
nothing about the reward and a person cannot accept an offer that
he is unaware. [12: Reference to: Williams v Carwardine [1833]5
C&P 566, 172 ER 1101] [13: Reference to: Fitch v Snedaker 38 NY
248 (1868)]
But the question is, could Jonathan still able to claim the
reward if he knew about Davids offer after he returned Minnie to
him? According to Gibbons v Proctor, the court held that the
offeree was allowed to claim the reward even though he did not know
about the offer at the time he discovered the information but get
to know about it before he claimed the reward.[footnoteRef:14]
However, if Jonathan had discovered about the reward after he
returned Minnie, he would be treated as if he never known about the
reward and David can choose not to pay him 1000. It then depends on
David if he wants to pay the reward to Jonathan but he wont be sued
for any breach of contract although he refuses to do so. [14:
Reference to: Gibbons v Proctor [1891]64 LT 594]
David against RichardThe question which now the courts are
facing is whether Richard is entitled for the reward? Richard, who
is a street sweeper, found Bimmie with severe burn and injured. He
took Bimmie to the vetenarian and incurred 60 for the treatment. In
Dunlop v Selfridge, the House of Lords stated that one must show
that he has bought the defendants promise by giving or promising
something in return for it.[footnoteRef:15] Therefore,
considerations have been made by Richard as he did suffered
detriment on the cost of the treatment and also put effort to bring
Bimmie back to David. [15: Reference to: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co
Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd[1915] UKHL 1, [1915] AC 847]
Acceptance has been started at the moment when Richard found
Bimmie and ended when Richard returned him to David. Besides that,
there is also intention to create legal relationship among the
parties. For David, he is quite serious in this issue because he
decided to put up an advertisement to search for his lost cats
which he had been putting up a lot of effort in training them for
stage performance, it is quite hard and a wasting of time to train
a new cat to take part in the upcoming competition. Therefore, he
is very desperate to find his lost cats back. For Richard, the
intention for him would be the reward which David offered. The most
important issue is does Richard knows anything about the
advertisement? If he do know about the information of the reward,
he could have claimed it from David as accordance to the case of
Williams v Carwardine.[footnoteRef:16] However, if he didnt know
about the offer of David, but yet he get to know it before
returning Bimmie, he can still claim for the reward based on the
case of Gibson v Proctor.[footnoteRef:17] [16: Reference to:
Williams v Carwardine [1833]5 C&P 566, 172 ER 1101] [17:
Reference to: Gibbons v Proctor [1891]64 LT 594]
But there is an argument which can be brought out by David to
refuse Richard from claiming the reward. On the advertisement which
David placed, stated that 1000 reward will be given with the safe
return of the cats, but when Richard returned Bimmie to David,
Bimmie was suffering injury, does this satisfy the condition of
Davids offer? This has to be decided by the courts then and depends
on David if he wants to compromise. Furthermore, if Richard has
successfully claimed the reward, can he still claim an extra 60
back which he incurred for the treatment of Bimmie? According to
the quantum meruit, he could probably claim for the detriment he
suffered as this is a claim for work done. Moreover, knowing that
Bimmie is unable to take part in the upcoming competition, David
decides to revoke his offer by placing a notice at the community
hall to cancel the reward. Although his revocation of his offer is
reasonable, it would not be accepted by the courts because the
previous method he used to make an offer is by putting an
advertisement on the Daily Bungle, but on the much later state, he
placed a notice at the community hall to revoke his offer, the fact
of this withdrawal must be communicated to the offeree who
otherwise would be unfairly treated. In the case of Byrne v Van
Tienhoven, the court held that revocation of an offer must be
received and understood by theoffereebefore it comes into
effect.[footnoteRef:18] This is because the offeree who read Daily
Bungle may not be noticing the notice in the communication hall.
Therefore, if David used a unilateral method to make an offer, he
has to end with a unilateral method or in a better way. [18:
Reference to: Byrne v Van Tienhoven [1880] 5 CPD 344]
Another reason that his revocation of offer is not acceptable is
because acceptance must occur prior to acceptance. In the case of
Routledge v Grant, the court held that until such time as an offer
is accepted, the offeror is free to revoke it, even if they have
given the recipient a period of time to consider
it.[footnoteRef:19] However, Richards acceptance had already ended
by the time he returned Bimmie, and the moment when David revoked
his offer was after Richards acceptance. This shows that Davids
revocation of offer occurs after Richards acceptance and therefore
it is not a good revocation, David can be sued in breach of
contract. [19: Reference to: Routledge v Grant [1828] 4 Bing 653,
130 ER 920]
With all the elements which vital to the formation of contract,
it is then submitted that Richard is the party who most probably be
entitled for the reward since Davids revocation is not
successful.David against SheebaIn the case of Balfour v Balfour,
the court held that the wife is not able to claim damages from her
husband because the agreement was purely a domestic agreement and
therefore it was presumed that the parties did not intend to be
legally bound.[footnoteRef:20] Davids wife, Sheeba wouldnt be able
to sue him if he refuses to pay her the reward as there was lack of
consideration and the agreement between them was probably domestic.
Besides that, the courts will be unwilling to intervene and enforce
such arrangements or the courts would be full of domestic
disputes.[footnoteRef:21] The arrangements would be left to the
parties themselves to sort out and will thus not usually be held to
be legally binding.[footnoteRef:22] [20: Reference to: Balfour v
Balfour [1919]2 KB 571] [21: Reference to: C Turner, Unlocking
Contract Law (3rd edn Routledge, Oxon 2013) 70] [22: Ibid.]
Therefore, although there is acceptance by her wife, David could
still choose not to pay her since there isnt any intention to
create legally binding obligations between them, which means that
no contractual liabilities were formed. As in the case of Merritt v
Merritt, the court held that where spouses have separated, it is
generally considered that they do intend to be bound by their
agreements.[footnoteRef:23] The written agreement signed was
further evidence of an intention to be bound. For instance, there
isnt any evidence to rebut the presumption as there was no contract
between David and Sheeba and they are still spouses. [23: Reference
to: Merritt v Merritt [1970] 1 WLR 1211 Court of Appeal]
David against DannyThe next issue brought to the surface would
be did Danny return Eimmie to David after he heard from Joshua that
David had revoked his offer? He would have probably decided to keep
Eimmie as his pet after knowing that. This is because if Danny
didnt return Eimmie to David, then no consideration will be
provided by Danny in exchange of Davids promise. However, if he
still decides to return Eimmie to David, could he claim for the
reward since he had already heard of the revocation? This has to be
identified if Davids revocation is valid and it is communicated as
according to the case of Bryne v Leon Van Tienhoven, the court held
that a revocation only will take effect upon
communication.[footnoteRef:24] [24: Reference to: Byrne v Van
Tienhoven [1880] 5 CPD 344]
Davids revocation should be valid in Dannys situation as he had
already heard about the revocation through Joshua, which is
considered as a reliable source. In the case of Dickinson v Dodds,
the court held that the revocation was acceptable and valid as the
third party shown to be a mutual acquaintance on whom both could
rely.[footnoteRef:25] On the fact that Danny would have the
knowledge about the revocation as he did get informed by Joshua,
and eventually Davids revocation is communicated to Danny.
Therefore, the principle in Bryne v Leon Van Tienhoven was
established. However, this will be on the courts discretion whether
Danny is able to claim for the reward, but the court would highly
deny his claimant as he had the knowledge of the revocation,
showing that revocation is communicated. [25: Reference to:
Dickinson v Dodds [1876] 2 ChD 463]
ConclusionIn my humble opinion, to wrap up this issue, the court
would mostly decide that the potential offeree is Richard since a
legally binding agreement was formed between him and the offeror.
Thus, he may be entitled to the reward and able to claim the
additional money back which he incurred. Whilst, the others may not
be entitled for the reward.
-
BibliographyBookStone R., The Modern Law of Contract (8th edn
Routledge-Cavendish, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2009)
Turner C., Unlocking Contract Law (3rd edn Routledge, Oxon
2013)
McKendrick E., Contract Law Text, Cases, And Materials (4th edn
OUP, Oxford 2010)
Rahnavard D., Course Note Contract Law (1st edn Hodder
Education, Oxon 2012)
Table of CasesPatridge v Crittenden [1986] 1 WLR 1204Carlill v
Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1QB 256, Court of AppealHyde v
Wrench [1840] 3 Beav 334, 49 ER 132 (Rolls Court)Stevenson, Jacques
& Co. v McLean [1880]5 QBD 346 (QB)Thomas v Thomas [1842]2 Q.B.
851, 114 E.R. 330
Planche v Colburn [1831]8 Bing 14
Williams v Carwardine [1833]5 C&P 566, 172 ER 1101
Fitch v Snedaker 38 NY 248 (1868)Gibbons v Proctor [1891]64 LT
594Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd[1915] UKHL
1, [1915] AC 847Byrne v Van Tienhoven [1880] 5 CPD 344Routledge v
Grant [1828] 4 Bing 653, 130 ER 920Balfour v Balfour [1919]2 KB
571Merritt v Merritt [1970] 1 WLR 1211 Court of AppealDickinson v
Dodds [1876] 2 ChD 463
11
