Case “MO La La” and “Ng Hou Wan” (Case Study Sample)

Case “MO La La” and “Ng Hou Wan”
Author
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
Case “MO La La” and “Ng Hou Wan”
To critically advise MO La La and Ng Hou Wan, they need to clearly understand the law of contract and what type of contract the advertisement was to know the next step. In this case, their issue involves an advertisement and their position to sue for physical damages, pure economics in Ng Hou, and pure economics for Mo La La; there is a need to determine if the advertisement was contracting in the first place. According to (Peel, & Treitel, 2007), advertisements are considered as invitations to treat rather than contract. It is not a breach of contract if the seller fails to sell the products at the quoted price in the advertisement. However, in the same case, an advertisement may be considered valid if it has the following elements;
* It communicates to a specific person or group of people
* It is sufficiently definite in its descriptions, quality, price, and quality
* The circumstance around the publication shows that the seller has an intent to enter a contract.
The court will observe if the parties involved had the intention of assuming legal responsibility to enter a contract. To determine if an offer was valid, courts will require the essential elements of a contract which include the offer, acceptance, and consideration.
Advertisement is made to initiate the negotiations between the seller and the buyer. Most advertisements do not reach the level of an offer; however, if an advertisement, for example, the one made by Daddy Farm Badges that if one finds the Badges, they get awarded HKD1 million the inability of not being in a position to negotiate and performing the act of finding the badge is all that is needed for acceptance, then this advertisement qualifies to be an offer.
The second phase of the advice will entail discovering what type of offer the Daddy Farm advert falls into in this case; it is in the unilateral contract where the type observes a promise in return for an act. The party given the promise is not bound to act, but when he acts, then the offer becomes binding. For example, Daddy farm offered a promise of HKD1 million if their customers deliver the hidden badges; upon delivering the hidden badges, the promise has acted, and the contract is binding to the promisor Daddy farm.
There is a need to prove the intention of creating legal relations; in this case, both friends need to understand if the advert intended to make a contract. The available evidence, in this case, is the advertisement was a commercial transaction, and hence the court will presume its intent to create an agreement. See Rose and Frank v. Crompton (1925) AC 445, provides a clause on commercial transactions stating if an arrangement is not a legal or formal agreement or a memorandum written, then it shall not be subject to the jurisdiction; however, it was definite that the intention, record of purpose and expression of the parties involved honoured to pledge based on the business to each other. Court held there was no contract since the parties had said there is no intention to create one.
The court will also look at the agreement; was there any agreement. In this case, the terms of the offer and the acceptance will apply. Daddy farm offers a cash reward for finding and delivering the badge. As observed earlier, negotiation power in the advert means it is not a contract; however, this advert leaves the customer with no power to negotiate, and upon acceptance, there will be no further negotiation making it an offer. In respect to the above, the court held that there was an offer in the Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) 1 QB 256 case, where they had placed an advertisement offering a $100 reward for those who will use the medicine and still ger influenza.
Termination: in this case, the offer Daddy Farm is in control of the contract, and they can terminate the same or withdraw whenever they feel like. Daddy Farm revoked the offer on 15 July through the newspaper, and hence for MO La La, he can not claim damages as he finds the badge on 16 July. The revocation is effective as it was communicated. See Bryne V. Van Tienhoven (1880), where revocation was of no effect since it was not communicated until the 20th and the contracted had already been formed. However, MO La La had to find and deliver the badge before 15 July for the contract to be binding, and since he had not yet meant the contract had not been formed, and thus, he cannot sue.
Consideration: in this case, the consideration is valued from both parties where the seller gets more customers and profits while the group targeted will consider the reward price. The type of consideration is executed as the promise involves doing something in return for another act. The offer is not formed, and the advertiser is not liable until the badge is found and delivered.
Based on the above text MO La La should not peruse for any action due to two main reasons. He did not follow the due process of buying the six boxes of ice cream to receive the book. In case he sues, the organization will counteroffer as they did not send him the book after purchase. Secondly, the element of revocation where he fulfills the agreement a day after the revocation was communicated. If Daddy Farm can prove he actually
Negligence
In this case, since we have proved that no contract existed between Daddy Farm and MO La La, then the company owes no contractual duties to him, and thus he cannot sue for damages. For negligence to help in court, the plaintiff will have to prove that the contract owed him the duty of care, whereas this contract ought to protect him, as a he was among the specific targeted audience of the advertisement, the actual offer did not occur between the two.
For Ng Hou Wan, he should sue for damages as the contract owed him the duty of care that the company breached by placing the badge at the top of the pole. To prove this negligence, there need to confirm the event comprised of a duty of care, breach of that care, and the breach resulted in damages. For MO La La, none of the above applied since the offer did not occur in the first place; however, for Ng Hou Wan, there is a chance the court will consider damages.
To prove duty of care, Ng Hou Wan will have to consider if the damage was rationally probable, was the affiliation between them adequately proximate, and if it is just and reasonable to enf