THEME 7: ADS AND UNILATERAL OFFERS

STARTING POSITION: Generally, ads are considered an invitation to treat, but they may be offers depending on the language that is used
OBJECTIVE REASONABLE PERSON TEST: The test to determine whether the language denotes an offer or an invitation to treat depends on how a reasonable person would read the ad
Once you find that something is an invitation to treat, your analysis ends because there is no contractual intent
UNILATERAL CONTRACT: conditions are set by the offeror and they bind the offeree
- Can be made to world at large and are non-negotiable; acceptance by way of fulfilling conditions (no need for communication directly to offeror)
- Bilateral offer made between two individuals
- In a unilateral offer, a sale is made once a deal is closed (ex. In an auction, the sale is complete when hammer hits; bidder may retract bid)

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball [1893] QB

SMOKE BALL INFLUENZA

I: Was the ad an offer? YES.

D: in favour of PL

*Ad is generally a unilateral offer

An ad in a newspaper may be an offer depending on the language of the ad and how the reasonable person would interpret the ad. When someone performs a condition in an offer, they do it on faith of the ad and don’t need to communicate it directly to offeror if the proposal doesn’t expressly indicate or imply communication of acceptance.

Meeting of the minds applied: offeree must be notified of offer so their minds can come together.

- DF advertised smoke ball as medicine to prevent influenza if taken three times a day according to directions

- if these conditions carried out and someone catches disease, DF will pay 100 pounds

-PL took it, followed directions, and caught influenza

-sued for 100 pounds

- ad can become a contract when someone performs on faith of ad

- terms are wide; not a definite offer

- performance constitutes acceptance

- cannot be assumed that smoke ball makes you immune indefinitely

- if offeror explicitly or impliedly indicates offer sufficient to act on proposal without communication, no notification required

- act is consideration because DF is benefitting

Goldthorpe v Logan [1943]

AD FOR HAIR REMOVAL

I: Was there an offer in ad? Did hair growth continue because of treatment? YES

D: Judgment in favour of appellant

Nature and construction of an ad may imply an ad is an offer rather than invitation to treat. Communication of offer depends on receipt by reasonable person.

*extrapolates Carbolic Smokeball with consideration principle – action = benefit to DF

-APPEL saw ad in paper re facial hair removal

- nurse guaranteed results

- hair not successfully removed

- ad indicated a guarantee of hair removal

- ad was an offer because of the fact that she had to go in to accept it

- there was consultation and guaranteed success

- guarantee in language of the ad signifies intention to create legal obligations – promise was reckless

- cannot accept offer you know nothing of

Blair v Western Mutual Benefit Assn [1972]

RETIREMENT RESOLUTION

I: Did PL receive an offer? NO

D: appeal dismissed; judgment in favour of DF

There must be a communication of an offer signifying an intention to create legal obligations (consensus ad idem).

- PL is a stenographer who typed out resolution of company indicating she could collect 2 years pay upon retirement given her seniority

-found out through typing assignment

-when she retired, company refused to pay because there was no promise

- reasonable person wouldn’t believe that there was an offer

- PL didn’t rely on resolution to retire

- precedent: Wilson v Belfast Corp (1921) – resolution passed at city council to pay half wages of those who joined forces wasn’t an offer because it wasn’t communicated

Williams v Carwardine (1833)

TURNING IN MURDERER

I: Was PL entitled to reward because she performed act of offer? YES

D: PL entitled to reward

Offers must explicitly and intentionally communicated...

#9051 - Ads And Unilateral Offers - Contracts Law

About Oxbridge

More Contracts Law Samples