Words: 1791
An offer has been described as an unconditional statement of a person’s intention to be bound by the terms of the offer made and thus the intention to contract with the other person. This case is considered as an advertisement which only involve a unilateral offer. The advertisement indicates a course of action in return for which the advertiser makes a promise to pay, the offered (David) is bound by his promise. The promise (rewards for the safe return of cats) forms the basis of an offer (poundings) and it is irrelevant that it is made in the context of an advertisement which would normally be regarded only as an invitation to treat.
The first person who has intention to form legal relation with David is Peter. Peter found Mime in the park and he brought it back home and keep it for few days. He then asked David to pay 1500 pounds as rewards instead of 1000 pounds as David stated in the advertisement. Obviously, Peter wanted to negotiate the amount of rewards with the David because he felt that the original 1 000 pounds reward is not sufficient for such a cat. On the other words, Peter rejected to accept the original reward offered by David as in Hyde.
In operating the ‘mirror image’ rule the acceptance must conform exactly to the terms of the offer or it is invalid and no contract will have been formed. The effect of a counter-offer is to terminate the original offer, which is then no longer open to be accepted by the offered. As mention in the case, Peter asked: ‘Ovule you pay 1500 pounds? ” Thus there is another possibility where Peter was merely enquiring about the contract as in Stevenson, which does not in fact seek to change the terms (reward amount of David). This mean that the offer is still open to acceptance by Peter.
If it is considered in this circumstance, it is not a counter-offer as it does not reject the terms of the offer. Besides that, if the counter-offer of Peter is accepted by David, thus the contract continues after this then it is the terms of the counter- offer rather than those of the original offer that form the basis of the eventual agreement. One of the example of this kind of cases is Davies. The second person who has intention to form legal relation with David is Hannah. She found Tommie around her shop. She fed the cat and wanted to turn it to David when she delivered the pet order in the nearby street.
Hannah incurred 20 pounds and she accidentally returned the wrong cat, Sammie to David as in Williams. Hannah successfully found the right cat, Tommie but unfortunately returned the wrong cat, Sammie to David. Comparing to case of William, Hannah was failed to return the right cat to David with knowledge of the existence of the reward although she found the right cat. The third person who found Davit’s cat is Jonathan. Jonathan who did not read the advertisement in Daily Bungle found Minnie and returned her immediately o David.
An advertisement of reward in newspaper is only an invitation of treat the public who make offer the contract about the reward the second party may accept or reject the offer. In this circumstance, it is obvious that Jonathan was unaware of Davit’s offer. Without knowledge of the existence the offer, Jonathan cannot claim the offer although he had found the cat because no legal relation was bound as similar to Inland. On the other hand, Jonathan cannot claim the reward because acceptance of an offer, in ignorance of offer, is not acceptance and does not confer any on Jonathan as in Fitch.
In order for a person to accept an offer, the acceptance must be in response to the offer according to the case of RE, therefore there is no contract bound between both parties (Jonathan and David). But then there is another possibility where Jonathan may claim the reward according to Gibbons and Thomas 10 which states that when a party has knowledge of a reward and act on behalf of an individual that meets the necessary conditions of the reward but have no knowledge of a reward, the latter individual can claim the reward being offered.
The next person who found Davit’s cat is Richard. Richard found realized that Bemire was injured and he took him to the veterinarian and incurred sixty pounds. According to the case of Cargill 1, the offer was made to the whole world and Richard has performed the act of acceptance, which is finds and returns the Davit’s cat safety. Therefore in my opinion, Richard can claim the reward with no doubt. After that, David placed a notice at the community hall to cancel the reward due to unable to take part in the upcoming competition.
Obviously, David had withdrawn the previous offer which lead to the termination of the offer. According to the case of Rutledge, David is forbidden to revoke the unilateral offer because the act of acceptance is completed by Richard which means that the unilateral contract itself is completed. In my opinion, obligation starts to arise as soon as the offered starts to perform. It is too late for the offered to revoke the unilateral offer once the offered has embarked on the performance as in Dahlia.
Also, the offered can only revoke the unilateral offer if the offered failed to perform as in Reorienting. Right after David cancelled the advertisement, his wife, Sheep found Dimmit eater in the evening and gave it to her husband in purpose to claim the reward but David refused to pay the reward. According to the case Shushes although Sheep found her husband cat after the revoke of the offer, she has a chance to claim reasonable amount of reward from her husband because she had put in effort in finding the cat and she in fact also found the required cat, Dimmit.
The last person who found Davit’s cat is Danny. Danny who was resting in his garden encountered Mime playing his shoes. When he was going to returned Mime to David, Joshua told her that David no longer gathering the cats for intention which is in another word, had cancelled the offer. In this situation, Joshua who act as the third party or mutual acquaintance of both parties had notified Danny about the revoke of the offer. In fact, by the time Joshua notified Danny the offer was already revoked by David.
So, Danny should unable to claim the reward because the communication of the withdrawal of the offer can be made by any reliable third party as in Dickinson 16. On the other hand, there is possibility where Danny could claim the reward because acceptance has been incommunicado to the offered and thus, a contract was bound. To revoke an offer revocation must be communicated to the offered before the offered has accepted. It is similar to the case of Hendricks 17. After that, Peter had returned Mime to David since his son was allergic to cat.
In the time when Peter returned the cat to David and wanted to claim the reward, David had already cancelled the offer. It is pretty obvious that Peter cannot claim the offer because the offer has been revoked by David. But there is another argument where Peter has the chances to claim the reward. As mentioned in the case, before David cancelled the offer, Peter had found the cat and decided to bring it home for few days before he took it to Davit’s house, which means that Peter had already performed the act of acceptance before the termination of the contract.
Also, David did not communicate the withdrawal of the offer with the offered (Peter) throughout the whole process of offer and acceptance. According to the case of Byrne, any withdrawal of the offer that is not communicated with the offered is inevitably invalid otherwise it would be unlawful to the offered. This is the reason why Peter would be able to claim the reward from David although he returned Mime to David after the revocation of the offer.
In summary, in a unilateral contract such as a reward situation, acceptance and performance are in effect one and the same thing. In the case of Cartilage, it has clearly stated that unilateral offer requires no acceptance other than performances from the offered. In my opinion, Richard is the only person who have one hundred percent chances to claim the reward. The reason of this is that Richard has simply performed the act of acceptance which fulfill the offer f David unlike Hannah who found the right cat but returned the wrong cat to David.
Also, Richard did not negotiate the reward as for example, Peter did and would probably change the term of contract and thus, lead to termination of the original offer. Besides that, Richard has returned the cat to David while the offer still last unlike Peter, Danny and Sheep. Three of them are fail to return the required cat to while the offer is still on and they should understand that David has the right to withdraw an offer, at any time before the offer is accepted.
Jonathan who found Minnie should be unable to claim the reward from David as Richard do because he was unaware of the offer and there is no legal relation bound between both parties, what Jonathan did is only considered as a voluntary act. Relatively, Richard has clear knowledge about the existence of the offer and he also found the cat, which mean that there is already a legal relation or contractual relation bound between both parties and the offer is valid and enforceable. In conclusion, a contract is completed when both sides honor an agreement y carrying out their particular side of the bargain.
This is the reason why I personally think that Richard has the highest possibility to claim the reward of David among all the other offers. Hannah is the only person who cannot claim the reward because she had failed to perform the act of acceptance, which is returning the required cat. Peter, Jonathan, Danny and Seeps may have some chances to claim part or the whole amount of the reward from David depending on the consideration of the court. This is my legal advise to David on his contractual liability with the other parties.