Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

This Question of Sandra's legal position is concerned with the Law of Contract, more specifically what a Contract actually

is, Unilateral promises, breaches of a contract, whether these breaches are material and remedies for a breach. In order to come to a conclusion we need to look at relevant cases in order to establish Sandra's Legal Position. Once we have answered this by looking at relevant cases we will be in the position to apply this to the facts of the case study, and reach a valid conclusion. A contract is a legally enforceable agreement i.e. an agreement which is forced by Law. It consists of a definite offer and an unqualified acceptance, thus achieving consensus in idem. A breach of contract means that one of the parties has broken in agreement in some way. Offers and acceptances can be either expressed or implied. There are many different types of breaches of contract which include failure to provide goods or perform a service which was agreed. Breaches of contract all have different consequences. Some breaches will be regarded as material which means that they are so serious that they completely defeat the whole idea of the contract therefore destroying it. A Breach of contract, no matter what form it takes, always entitles the innocent party to maintain an action for damages, which is a form of remedy. Another Form of Remedy is Rescission. This Remedy is used by the victim when the defender has committed a material breach of contract. It is recognised that 1 A material Breach is an important breach as it goes to the basics of the agreement an completely undermines the contract. The remedy of Rescission is for the court of cancel the contract. Minor breaches of contract will rarely allow the pursuer to cancel the contract and very often that court will grant damages to the pursuer as an alternative. The Case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball co viewed by many for the Study of Offer .In the Case Mrs Calill and Carbolic Smoke Ball co entered into a contract as the Carbolic Smoke Ball co stated 2"100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the iufluenza after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball."1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, showing our sincerity in the matter." Mrs Carlill sees this Advertisement and uses the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball and gets influenza. Therefore she is entitled to the 100 reward. The defendant tried to argue that the advertisement was a mere invitation to treat rather than an offer. He said the advert was a sales puff and lacked intent to be an offer. There was no notification of acceptance and the wording was too vague to constitute an offer since there was no stated time limit as to catching the flu.. The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Carlill was entitled to the reward as the advert constituted an offer of a unilateral contract which she had accepted by performing the conditions stated in the offer. The court rejected all the arguments put forward by the defendants as The statement referring to the deposit of 1,000 demonstrated intent and therefore it was not a mere sales puff, it is quite possible to make an offer to the everyone. In unilateral contracts there is no requirement that the offeree communicates an intention to accept, since acceptance is through full performance. Whilst there may be some ambiguity in the wording this was capable of being resolved by applying a reasonable time limit or confining it to only those who caught flu whilst still using the balls. The
1 2

Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball co (1893) 1 QB 256 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953) 1 QB 401 3 Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 BEAV 334

defendants would have value in people using the balls even if they had not been purchased by them directly. Communication is important as you need to show that you are fully entitled to the claim that you are making. This Case illustrates the importance of communication of the offer. If Mrs Carlill merely chanced to buy a smoke ball without seeing the advert she wouldn't have been entitled to any money. Due to her actions she made an acceptance to the offer because it was in response to an offer. The important thing to note is that due to the fact that Mrs Carlill seen the offer she is entitled to the money. Therefore Sandra accepted the offer when she saw that when buying a new cooker, she would be entitled to a new microwave oven. Meteors could be potentially sued for being in breach of their contract however if they indicated that this offer was whilst stocks last, they wouldn't be sued. However if this is not the case then Sandra could sue Meteor's for a microwave oven. It can often be confusing when it becomes necessary to decide the difference between an offer and an invitation to treat. An Invitation to treat can be refused therefore a binding contract cannot be formed. It is merely a statement that can be described as a 'make me an offer which I may or may not accept' offer. Examples of Invitations to treat are goods or services which are advertised in newspapers, trade journals, catalogues etc. The Case 3 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953) is cash which describes the difference between invitation to treat and an offer. Boots introduced the then new self-service system into their shops whereby customers would pick up goods from the shelf put them in their basket and then take them to the cash till to pay. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain brought an action to determine the legality of the system with regard to the sale of pharmaceutical products which were required by law to be sold in the presence of a pharmacist. The court thus needed to determine where the contract came into existence. The Case proves that placing goods on display offer to sell those goods, its merely an invitation to treat. Therefore Sandra has every right to pay full price for the Iron because it was just an invitation to treat. A counter offer is where an offeree responds to an offer by making an offer on different terms. This has the effect of destroying the original offer so that it is no longer open for the offeree to accept. The Case4 Hyde v Wrench (1840) illustrates how counter offers work. The defendant offered to sell a farm to the claimant for 1,000. The claimant in reply offered 950 which the defendant refused. The claimant then sought to accept the original offer of 1,000. The defendant refused to sell to the claimant and the claimant brought an action for specific performance. Qualified acceptance of the offer does not result in the creation of a contract because the offeree has rejected the original offer and replaced it with a new offer which the offeror may or may not choose to accept. Therefore because Sandra didn't accept the Iron at 35 this is a form of rejecting a counteroffer therefore if she wants to buy the Iron then she will have to pay full price for it, as leaving the shop was a clear rejection of the product.

1 2

Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball co (1893) 1 QB 256 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953) 1 QB 401 3 Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 BEAV 334

In Conclusion, we can see that Sandra would argue that the breach of contract was material because the reason she was going to buy a new cooker from Meteors was because it was stated that in the newspaper anyone that bought a new cooker would be given a new microwave oven, therefore Sandra can sue the company and would be entitled to her microwave oven or given the money of how much it is worth. However Sandra would not be able to do anything about the Iron as due to the evidence in the cases, it can be seen that even though the Iron was on a shelf for Irons that are 20, doesn't mean that that is its selling price therefore the law states that this is only an invitation to treat. Also Sandra will not be able to accept the counter offer of 35 for the Iron as she rejected it due to walking out of the shop showing that when a counter offer is made, the first offer is cancelled out, shown in the cases. CITATIONS
1

Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball co (1893) 1 QB 256 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953) 1 QB 401 Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 BEAV 334

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Crossan and Wylie - Introductory Scots Law; Theory and Practice, 2nd ed., Hodder Gibson

1 2

Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball co (1893) 1 QB 256 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953) 1 QB 401 3 Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 BEAV 334