Words: 2715
Elaborating shortly on the case given, it can be seen that David, the offer, places an ad in the newspaper Daily Bungle, in which it is responded by six different participants (offers). Unfortunately, one of the cat, Bemire, is injured and this made David to terminate the contract. In relation to this case, the offer and acceptance, thus the making of agreement, has been established. Offer, is when an offer offers anything to the offered, then the offered makes an agreement through acceptance, which then forms and agreement, thus where the offer and acceptance is being applied.
In light to this question, it ill be tackled on how David will deal with these offers and their respective parties, which will be discussed mainly on how the contract is made, and how it should be then concluded. Based on the case given, it can be seen that David, the offer, is contractually bound to pay the amount of IOW, for each a cat. This contract is bound due to that the offer had been established, through the advertisement on the Daily Bungle, with which it is then accepted by the acceptance.
In order for this contract to be bound, we must first look into the case of Cargill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1 893)1, whereby it in the terms of a unilateral contract. The reason that it is a unilateral contract is that as David advertised his lost cats through newspaper, indicates that he is consented to be contractually bound by the whatsoever terms that he had written on the advertisement, albeit that he then terminated this contract, but more on that later.
According to the case mentioned above, it is stated that offers, which are made by David, addressed to the general public is accepted when the offer is acted upon by members of the general public. This means that, when the offer is advertised, and acted by the general public, which are those offers, t can be said that a contract had been made. On normal circumstances, this unilateral contract is intended to be bound. However, although it can be seen that this discussion goes on the unilateral contract, it is actually in fact a bilateral contract. The reason for this is because Davit’s advertisement is done through means of newspaper.
For this reason, the more proper case will be Grainier & Sons v Cough (1896)2, whereby it is stated that bilateral contract tend to be normally an invitation to treat, rather than intention to be bound by it, like its unilateral contract counterpart. But even with the usual case of it being an invitation to treat rather than intention to be bound, David is still considered to be contractually bound as in accordance to the case, because the contract is formed when the offers does their act to accept the invitation to treat, including the considerations that are given, especially from Hannah and Richard.
Thus, it can be said that there is formation of contract, this then ultimately made David to be contractually bound to the offers. In the English law, in order for a contract to be valid, it must follow the 4 stages that are required, based on the Ornament’s cases, which is established from Lord Wildflower. These are the agreement, which are offer and acceptance, followed with consideration, intention to create legal relation, and no vitiating factors. These vitiating factors are misrepresentation, mistake, illegality, and duress and undue influence.
Now, as already mentioned above, these stages needs to be in consideration as in Davit’s motive of putting up the advertisement. As with the earlier paragraph, the motive for Davit’s advertisement need to be considered for each one of the stages. Contract is obviously bound, as the offer and acceptance had already take place. Consideration, however, does not necessarily the same as tit offer and acceptance, although intention to create legal relation, is obviously happening in some of the participants, as with the case of Simpson v Pays (1955)5, whereby although social agreements is considered to be not binding, but it can then be rebutted.
As with vitiating factors, there are none, because the matters does not involve things that are under vitiating factors. Newspaper advertisement-as it is known (further elaboration on earlier discussion), can be an offer (Cargill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)), or it can be deemed as invitation to treat (Partridge v Accredited (1968)6). The question is whether Davit’s advertisement can be classified as offer or merely an invitation to treat.
Clearly, from the question given, it can be said that David wants to be legally bound, which makes the advertisement to be an offer, and not an invitation to treat. This is because when David decided to put up the advertisement, he included details which encouraged it to be more of an offer, than just merely invitation to treat. E 1000 for each a cat, which is 6 cats, and also address which is put up clearly on the advertisement, indicates that this is more than just an invitation to treat.
Where in the case of Cargill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893), the offers which are made to general public, it is then accepted by members of the general public, Davit’s advertisement is more appropriate, compared with the case of Partridge v Accredited (1968), whereby it is stated that the advertisement of chicken in the magazine is deemed to be an invitation to treat, and not an offer. Because of this, the advertisement which is put up is an offer, and not an In the terms of intention to create legal relations, whereby invitation to treat.
David intends to be whether or not to be legally bound by it, will be discussed shortly by the case of Edwards v Savvy’s Ltd (1964)7. In this case, it is stressed whether the advertisement which is made by David to be put in the newspaper does have an ambiguity or not. Where in the case that are mentioned earlier, it is stated that the words of ‘ex gratin’ as said by the defendant, whom said that it indicated not to be legally binding, is quashed by the Court of Appeal, where the words of ‘ex gratin’, “… Rely signified that the employers not admitting any pre- existing liability; it didn’t mean that they were not bound by the agreement”8. But more importantly, this part will deal more on whether each of the parties offers) that are involved with the case does have their intention to be legally binding or not. With Peter, it can be seen that he wanted to be legally bound with the contract. Moreover, he also wanted to make a counter-offer, which is mentioned by his willingness to change the reward from IOW to El 500.
But then he decided not to immediately return Mime (the cat), although in the end of the question, it is mentioned that he wanted to return the cat due to his son’s allergy to the cat, with him still not knowing that the reward had been cancelled. In addition to this, Peter also mentioned his question about when he will get the none. Regardless of him not getting the money as the offer had been revoked, but the case of Stevenson Jacques & Co v Mclean (1 880)9 still needs to be mentioned.
Whereby a request for information is given, it does not amount to counter-offer, so the original offer remains open. With Hannah, it is clear that she wanted to create legal relation. This is further noted with her consideration of taking care Tommie which incurred an amount of EYE. Unfortunately, during her errand of the work, she inadvertently returned Sammie, and not Tommie. Sammie is not mentioned in the advertisement given, and thus what she returned o David is invalid. This topic, regarding not complying the term, will be discussed further in the next paragraph.
In regards to Hannah, as she doesn’t complied with the term, by returning Sammie, instead of Tommie, can be contrasted with the case of Williams v Cowardice (1833)10. In this case, it is held that awareness of the offer and complying with the terms grants her with the reward, regardless of the motive. As can be seen by the question, it can be assumed that Hannah doesn’t know about the advertisement, since she found Tommie loitering around her shop. The problem is, although she complied with the term and also doing consideration, she doesn’t return the right cat, which is Sammie.
Due to this situation, this matter can be contrasted with the case of Hyde v Wrench (1840)11. In this case which deals with counter-offer, whereby a counter-offer occurred, it terminates the original offer. The reason for this is because when Hannah inadvertently returned Sammie, it amounts to a counter-offer, and this makes her unable to claim the reward, even if she doesn’t know about it. As with Jonathan, who doesn’t know about the advertisement, but because he’s a neighbor of David, knew about Davit’s cats and when he found Minnie, immediately returns it to David.
As in accordance with the case of Williams v Cowardice (1833), even if he does not know about the offer, or regardless of his motive, he is still entitled for the reward. Thus, although no intention to create legal relation is there because Jonathan doesn’t know about the offer in the first place, he is still entitled for the reward of E 1000 for the cat that he has given back. In regards to Richard, a street sweeper, found Bemire in the neighborhood with severe burns and injured.
In regards to intention to create legal relation, as because this is a kind of domestic agreement, normally it does to to be legally binding, like the previous offers mentioned above and after. However, the case of Simpson v Pays (1955) needs to be mentioned. Although it is sure that Richard does not intend to be legally bound, but because he still brought back Bemire to David, he is still entitled for the reward, even though the cat is severed. It is after this point that David decides to cancel the reward. In Sheep, Davit’s wife, found Dimmit, and gave it back to David, whom refuses to pay.
As with the case of Buffalo v Buffalo (191 9)12, although the relationship between husband and wife is considered to be not legally binding, thus it can e said that Sheep doesn’t intend to be legally bound, although this is bound to change if there is evidence to the contrary. As with the question given, it can be assumed that Sheep doesn’t want to be legally binding, and to add it, the reward has been cancelled. Thus, Sheep can’t claim for the reward from David. Danny, who accidentally found Mime in his garden, decided to bring back the cat to Davit’s house.
Upon his way, he stumbled with Joshua, a third-party, who told him that the reward has been cancelled. As mentioned earlier, Danny doesn’t know about the offer, but because the advertisement is put through swapper, it can be assumed that he knew about the offer. However, during his way to Davit’s house, he stumbled with Joshua, a third-party, who told him that David had cancelled the reward by no longer gathering the cats. It can be assumed that Danny never returned back the cat. In regards of intention to create legal relation, it can also be assumed that he doesn’t want that too.
Thus, Danny also doesn’t get the reward, as he doesn’t comply with the term, and also because David had revoked the offer. Now the focus will be more onto consideration. First of all, the definition of consideration can be found in he case of Currie v Miss (1875) 1 3, where it is described in terms of benefit and detriment: ‘some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other’ 14. With quote taken into account from professor Ataxia’s criticism, it can be said “… Hat court never set out to create the doctrine of consideration in the first place… When the courts found sufficient reason of enforcing a promise, they enforce it… It seems that the first time courts used the word consideration, hey meant not more than a good reason for enforcement of the promise. If the consideration was good, the courts see it as a sufficient reason for enforcing the promise… ” This shows that in the beginning, consideration is merely when courts found a sufficient reason to enforce a promise, it only then that it is further developed into what consideration is known as today.
Another important point to be mentioned is the rule of consideration. First, consideration must move from the promises, this can be seen in the case of Twaddle v Atkinson (1861)15. Second, past consideration is not a good consideration, this can be en in the case of Rosella v Thomas (1842)16. Third, consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. As mentioned above, these are some of the explanation on the consideration. Below are how each of the offers that goes with David, divided by who did the consideration or not.
First, the discussion will take place on offers who doesn’t involved with consideration. They are Peter, Jonathan, Sheep, and Danny. Each of these persons will be discussed briefly. With Peter, it is stated that he only brought back Mime to his house, without providing anything, which he then asked to return due o his son’s allergy with the cat. With Jonathan, it can be said that he doesn’t incur consideration, as he returned Minnie immediately. With Sheep, as she is Davit’s wife, and that she found Dimmit in their house, consideration is not present.
Danny, who accidentally found Mime, heard Joshua and decides to return it back, but since David no longer wanted to receive the cats, Mime is not given back. The further discussion will take place on the offers who did the consideration. Hannah, who found Tommie, took her and feeds it, this amounts to consideration. The trip that she incurred during the trip for ere pet order while also returning it to David, amounts to EYE, this is also a consideration. Unfortunately, during her trip, she gave the wrong cat, which is Sammie.
On Richard, he found Bemire in the vicinity of the neighborhood with severe burns and injured. He then took the cat into veterinarian and incurred EYE, which amounts to consideration. He then returned it to David. This section will then deal on which offers that David are liable to pay. Because Peter gave Mime on a much later date, David then doesn’t need to pay as the reward is cancelled. Hannah is not to be paid too, as she brought wrong cat, spite her consideration. Jonathan, however, is entitled to be paid, because he returned it immediately.
Richard is also granted for the payment, as although the cat is severed, the advertisement never mentioned anything about the condition about the cats, only about the return of the cats. Sheep, as she is Davit’s wife, and because the reward has been cancelled, means that David isn’t required to pay for his wife. Lastly, Danny, who initially brought Mime back, decided not to, after the information given by Joshua. Danny isn’t entitled for the reward, as it has been cancelled. In conclusion, David is required to pay the reward to Jonathan and Richard, as with the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph.
As with the discussion mentioned above, although David mainly does not need to pay for many of the rest of the parties, he still needs to pay for two of them. This is because of the advertisement that he already put up. With this already being put up, then it can be concluded of so that David needs to grant the reward to the respective parties. Indeed, the explanation is still rather rough, but it is still provided nonetheless.