Is there a valid legal contract between “SuperNatural” and Gaia? Or not?
The issue is whether a contact exists between SuperNatural and Gaia. We also need to determine first whether there is offer and acceptance to determine whether a contract exists.
For a valid contract to exist, parties must reach an agreement after one gives an offer and the other party accepts the offer without a counter-offer. For contract to exist, there has to be a meeting of the minds, and this is construed depending on the circumstances. Offer shows the willingness to enter into a contact, and if accepted, a valid contract will exist. An offer is like a promise to do something. Offers can be made to particular people and sometimes to the world as seen in AGC Limited v Mchhirter. Acceptance involves the offeree, agreeing to what has been offered. This can be done through conduct, a valid statement or when a person whom the offer is being directed to agree to the offer. It is usually sufficient when an offeree acts in a particular way based on the offer. Acceptance does not require any particular conduct. The capacity of the parties entering into a contract also matters. Capacity includes legal age, sound mindedness and ability to understand the contractual terms (Bix, 2012, pg. 20).
In general, courts do not consider advertisements as offers. They are instead invitations to begin the process of negotiations. Most public advertisements are invitations to treat and do not constitute offers. In Patridge v Crittenden (1968); in this case, the defendant was selling Bramblefinch hens, wild hens. He advertised the burds, the amount and the number, it was unlawful to sell such wild birds, and he was sued. In court, the issue was whether an advertisement was an invitation to treat- (which will make him blameless for the offense), or an offer which will (make him guilty). The court held that the defendant was not guilty because an advertisement is an invitation to treat and not an offer. Such advertisements have an exception in the cases of rewards because rewards require certain requirements to be fulfilled so that a person is entitled to the reward. In Giting v Lynn (1831) when an offer is too vague, it cannot be considered a valid offer. In this case, there was an offer that after purchasing a horse there was a promise to pay “$5 more if the horse was lucky”. The court considered this offer to be too vague (Smits, 2017 pg 45).
Carlill Vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball case shows a unilateral offer scenario. In this case, an advertisement was placed stating that anyone who used the smoke ball as per the directions and still contracted influenza, was entitled to $100 reward. In this case, the instructions required a person to use the smoke balls for three weeks and three times every day. Mrs. Carlill purchased the smoke balls, and after following the instructions, she still contracted influenza. She sought to claim the $100 reward. In this case, issues as on the communication of Carlill’s acceptance were raised. The court decided that although there was an offer to the world at large, Carlill took the necessary steps to fulfill the requirements hence a valid contract existed. Although she did not communicate about her acceptance, she fulfilled the terms as required. This shows how such unilateral offers can waiver the need for communication from parties (Blum, 2017 pg.57).
The case of Guia and SuperNatural is a classical case of a unilateral contract such as the one of Carliill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball case. In this case, an advertisement is placed with instructions to use, and it guarantees that the user will have immunity to “NeuroToxiaflu.” It further states that if a person of the prescribed age (over 65), and follows the given instructions complies and still contracts the disease, they entitled to a refund and a trip with two other members. The advertisement states further that supernatural has made arrangements with Sunshine Coast Resort for the trip to show their sincerity. Guia is a 7-year-old retiree who has suffered the Neuro Toxia Virus since she was 65. When she sees the advertisement in a flyer, he rushes to the nearest Pharma-Shed and purchases the 100 tablet pack. She takes the tablets as prescribed and she is diagnosed with her worst strain of Neuro Toxia.
She then contacts Roxane and Alexander to get the refund. Roxane and Alexander claim that it was a gimmick advertisement and there was no agreement between Gaia and Supernatural. They further tell Gaia they had no intentions of entering a legally valid contract. Firstly we see an advertisement where Gaia responds and fully adhere to the requirements. There is a unilateral offer, where it requires the parties to respond by fulfilling the requirements. We see Gauia sticking to the two months plan, and she does not get the results. In Carlill vs. Carbolic smoke balls, the court states that the parties need not communicate acceptance. Fulfillment of the conditions is sufficient. Empirical holding vs. Machon Pau atates that acceptance can take any form, which includes signaling the offerer that the offer has been accepted (Smits, 2017 pg, 45-60).
We also see that once the contract has commenced, and the offeror has not withdrawn the offer, the offeror cannot revoke the contract because there is commencement. There is an implied promise, hence irrevocable. This was held as such in Errington V Errington (Oughton, 2006, pg. 56). In this case, a father promised the son and his daughter in law a house if they paid the full installments of the mortgage. In this case, they both proceeded as agreed but the wife of the father inherited the house after the father passed away. When the mother tried to revoke the offer, she was estopped because a collateral contract existed which was supposed to remain open until the agreed conditions were fulfilled (Wood, 2010 pg. 58).
For an offer to be valid, the offeree also must know. We see this in Gibson V Proctor that even when information is from a third party, the claimant is entitled to the reward by virtue of knowledge that it exists. Sometimes acceptance requires a party to notify another person as held in Felthouse v Binley. However, in unilateral contracts acceptance need not be communicated.
Some of the defendant’s arguments in the Carlill’s case were that the advertisement lacked intent hence the offer was not there. The other argument was that there was no notification of acceptance and that it is impossible to make an offer to the world. The defendant also tried to argue that the offer was too vague and that there was no consideration. The court countered these arguments stating that depositing $1000 in the bank to show sincerity, showed intent (Stone & Devenney,2017 pg. 20). In the case of Gaia, when Roxane and Alexander went ahead to arrange with Noose Resort, shows intent to contract. The court also stated that in unilateral contracts, acceptance is through full performance and there is no need to communicate intent. In the case of Gaia, she is seen as accepting the offer when she fully performs the requirements and sticks to the prescription given in the advertisement. The court also held that the defendants would benefit when people use their balls and even if the balls are not directly purchased from them. In the case of Roxane and Alexander, they cannot claim the advertisement was a Gimmick because they already benefited from it. Given this, a valid contract exists, and Gaia is entitled to a refund and the holiday with two people of her choice.
Generally, a consideration in any contract is always given with a paid the price. In unilateral contracts, consideration is the execution of the requirements. The promise made by the offeror can be enforced once the requirements are fulfilled. Consideration cannot be past and can only be used to claim a promise. In Routledge v Grant, revocation can take place any time as long as the time limit which was given has not expired (Schulze, 2007 pg. 175).
Conclusion
Many courts look at the intent of the advertiser when looking at the validity of the contract in such advertisements. This means that the courts look at whether a by-stander would look at the advertisement and assume that a contract was created (McNeil, 2017 p.287). Advertisers are required by law to shun from putting misleading information or do false advertisement. The court will also consider the circumstances surrounding every case because the circumstances are usually unique. Sometimes the courts look at whether the offer was accepted by the complainant. In general, an offer can be revoked unless an advertiser has already received the benefit or action has been taken in reliance on the offer as seen in Errington v Errington. Therefore, in the case of Neurotoxia and Guaia, a contract is formed, and NeuroToxia cannot purport to revoke the contract since Guaia has already fulfilled his part of the deal. Also, contracts of a unilateral nature require only that the requirements are fulfilled, and communication is not necessary.
Stone R. and Devenney,J., 2017. The modern law of Contract. Routledge
Bix, B. and Bix, B.H., 2012. Contract law: rules, theory, and context. Cambridge University
Press.
Blum, B.A., 2007. Contracts: examples & explanations. Aspen Publishers Online
Macneil, I.R., 2017. Contracts: adjustment of long-term economic relations under classical,
neoclassical, and relational contract law. Nw. UL Rev., 72, p.854.
Mulcahy, L., 2008. Contract law in perspective. Routledge-Cavendish
Oughton, D.W. and Davis, M., 1996. Sourcebook on contract law. Cavendish.
Schulze, R., 2007. New features in contract law. Walter de Gruyter.
Smits, J.M. ed., 2017. Contract law: a comparative introduction. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wilson, S., 2016. Concentrate Questions and Answers Contract Law: Law Q&a Revision and
Study Guide. Oxford University
Press.
Wood, D., Chynoweth, P., Adshead, J. and Mason, J., 2010. Law & the built environment. John
Wiley & Sons.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download