Law of Contract (Coursework Sample)

LAW OF CONTRACT Student’s Name Course Professor’s Name University City (State) Date Law of Contract For a contract to be valid, one of the essential elements that must be incorporated is an offer. This offer has to be acknowledged by another party privy to the contract for acceptance to occur. Through an offer, one party shows the willingness to contract with another. In the law of contracts, an offer may be defined as a promise in exchange for the performance offered to one party by another (Richards 2006). During the process of disclosing the offer to the offeree, the offeror may choose to terminate or revoke the offer. This act may, however, be conducted under certain conditions. A lot of courts have experienced challenges in trying to distinguish the legal context and meaning that defines an invitation to treat and an offer. The distinction between these two aspects have often misled people, and some have ultimately misinterpreted it a couple of times. An invitation to treat may be defined as a supply of information that is meant to tease or tempt a person to make an offer. Great cases such as Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893) and Partridge v Crittenden (1968) distinguish effectively offers from invitations to treat. It is important to note that the distinction of these terms by courts of law is critical in any given case. For example, when complications, as well as misinterpretations, occur in the ascertainment of the two aspects in a particular case, the courts are mandated to distinguish and decide the application of the terms in a given case. The courts find the initial intention of the parties to avoid binding of contracts where it is void or voidable. It also determines the application of the terms to stop any party from escaping liability (Richards 2006). Carlill v. Carbonic Smoke Ball Company (1893) This case was decided in the year 1893. During this year, an advertisement was set up in the newspaper by Carbonic Smoke Ball Company (Pain 2006). This ad in the local newspaper suggested that their smoke balls can prevent influenza. The employees and the stakeholders of the company placed so much confidence in their product that they incorporated a strict promise alongside the advertisement. In their claim on preventing influenza, the company convinced the public that its smoke balls were so effective that if a user contracted the flu while using their products, he or she would be entitled to compensation. The compensation was equated to 100 pounds. To illustrate their solemn undertaking of the matter, they deposited about 1,000 pounds in a nearby bank. The act of depositing the money in the bank amounts to consideration, and is a basic element in a contract. A client by the name Elizabeth Carlill decided to make a purchase to confirm whether the affirmations were true. She put the smoke balls to test and in an unfortunate event, contracted influenza. The company, however, refuted the events of the situation and suggested that the smoke balls do work as they offered her daily tests. Carlill, however, refused and took the case to court. In its defense, the company maintained the ad was meant to purely entice the public, hence, should be taken lightly. The company also claimed that the publication was not an offer but a mere invitation to treat. Hence, Carlill was not justified in inferring the existence of an actual contract between her and the company (Stephens 2011). The company was held liable as it took the ruling to an appellate court. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company decided to justify its legal position by holding that the ad was a mere invitation to treat (Paul 2006). The company claimed that the ad was geared to attracting customers by overestimating the efficiency of the smoke ball products in preventing influenza. It was only through the newspaper that the company would reach as many clients as possible. The company also argued that the money consideration offered was not enough to convince any client that there was an existent offer. The company was held liable and the Court of Appeal ordered for the award of damages and specific performance to Carlill. This decision arguably formed the benchmark of offers in cases of law relating to offers. In its decision, the Court of Appeal created a binding precedent to all courts by maintaining that advertisements that contain the elements of offer, acceptance and consideration create a contractual agreement between parties. The facts of this case also lay out the basis of unilateral offers that legally bind parties after acceptance. The Court of Appeal also suggested that the offer was accepted by anyone as long as he or she fulfilled the terms of the advertisement (Paul 2006). Carlill met the terms set therein as she was supposed to take the smoke ball products for three months. The Court of Appeal also held the company liable as it had promised the clients that would contract influenza 100 pounds and also made further consideration to the offer by depositing money in a local bank. The elements of a contract were found present. The company made an offer by advertising, and Carlill accepted the offer by using the smoke balls. There was a consideration in the form of the award to be paid and depositing of the money in the local bank. The company was deemed to intend creating legal relations with the client and was, therefore, held liable. Partridge v Crittenden (1968) This case incorporated an issue about advertisements. The principal problem, in this case, was whether newspaper advertisements amount to offers or not (Du Plessis 2015). This case was decided by a divisional court that belonged to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court. This case clearly distinguishes an invitation to treat from an offer. In this case, Partridge had published an ad that stated he possessed different kinds of Bramblefinch hens as well as cocks. Even though he published this information, he did not proceed to include any offers for the sale of the birds in the advertisement. This information may have proved contrary to the public as he stated that each hen and cock costs 25 shillings. The public, however, experienced difficulties in ascertaining whether the animals were on sale as the advertisement was placed in a general classified section but failed to use general sale words at that time such as “offer for sale.” A client decided to pay for a hen and paid a cheque that Partridge considered and provided the hen in a box. Partridge was held liable by the court in accordance with the Protection of Birds Act (1954). This statute forbids creation of contractual offers by selling wild birds to the public. Partridge sought out to appeal the decision of the court. The case was held in favor of Partridge as the High Court ruled that the facts of the case amount to an invitation to treat rather than a contractual offer. The court, however, distinguished this type of advertisements to the ones that are defined by unilateral contracts such as the one in Carlill v. Carbonic Smoke Ball Company (1893) as they amount to offers rather than an invitation to treats. The court also established that it was unreasonable that the advertiser could choose to sell the limited stock to anyone that accepted the invitation to treat. This case is well known amongst other cases for offering the basis under which invitations to treats are distinguished from offers (Du Plessis 2015). It establishes various legal precedents relating to the law of contracts especial...