Case with sample answer

Radio station QUES (Station), put an identification tag on a large bass fish it named "Big Bertha"
and placed it in a nearby lake (the Lake) as part of a promotional fishing contest. Station
advertised the contest during radio broadcasts, but required no formal entry. The advertisement
stated that anyone who caught Big Bertha on hook and line and presented it to Station would be
entitled to a $5,000 cash price.
Betty and Sam often went boating at the Lake with friends. While driving together to the Lake,
Sam said that he was having problems paying his mortgage and owed past due taxes on his
property (Blackacre). Sam told Betty, "I will give you a deed to Blackacre if you agree to pay all
past due taxes and to make all future mortgage payments due on Blackacre. Betty had always
wanted to own Blackacre and she immediately replied, "I agree!" Betty did not intend to fish but
while sitting in Sam's boat she picked up an extra fishing pole and decided to drop a fishing line
into the Lake to see what might happen. Almost immediately Betty felt a fish bite her hook. Sam
saw this and yelled, "You may have hooked Big Bertha! Reel her in and you will win the $5,000
prize offered by QUES." Betty reeled in her catch and saw the Big Bertha identification tag. She
called Station and told them she had caught Big Bertha with hook and line. When Betty
presented Big Bertha and attempted to claim the $5,000 prize, Station refused to pay her because
"she had not actually participated in the contest but was merely on a social outing" when she
caught Big Bertha.
After returning from the Lake, Betty paid the past due taxes on Blackacre and immediately
moved in where she has continuously and exclusively resided. Besides regularly paying the
mortgage, Betty added a new family room and new front yard landscaping to the property that
permanently improved Blackacre, greatly enhancing its appearance and value. However, when
Betty asked Sam to give her the deed to Blackacre as he had promised, Sam refused to do so.
I. Does Betty have an enforceable contract against Station? Discuss.
II. Does Betty have an enforceable contract against Sam? Discuss.

Answer
Introduction
This paper analyses the stated fact pattern against the matrix of contract law with a view to answering the
two specific questions posed. The questions both concern issues of contract formation. Pertinent case law
and authority is applied in de constructing the scenarios and forming sound conclusions.
I. Does Betty have an enforceable contract against QUES (Station)?
It stands to reason that one of the formal components of any enforceable contract is a valid offer. It is
submitted that Station made such an offer when it advertised that anyone who caught Big Bertha on hook
and line and presented it to Station would be entitled to a $5,000 cash prize. It is settled law that
competent offers may be made not only to a specific person or specific group of people, but also to the
world at large (as in this case) .
There is a general rule that advertisements constitute invitations to treat rather than offers : see for
example Partridge v Crittenden [1968] . However, in cases where the advertisement in question comprises
a clear and certain set of terms and a commitment that objectively suggests an intention to establish legal
relations, especially in the case of a unilateral contract such as the one under consideration, then an
enforceable offer may be found .

Foundation authorities for this principle (and exception to the general rule) include Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke Ball Company [1893] , Hunter v General Accident, Fire and Life Assurance Corporation [1909]
and Wood v Letrick (1932) . In these cases general offers were made to the world at large by means of
advertisement , which were deemed accepted to create binding contracts by individuals who fulfilled the
terms of those advertisements .
The offer made and promulgated by Station is essentially a very simple one:
1. The fish, Big Bertha must be caught by hook and line. 2. The fish must thereafter be presented to
Station.
Leaving all peripheral circumstances aside, Betty has manifestly fulfilled these terms. Stations reason for
refusing to pay Betty, because she had not actually participated in the contest but was merely on a social
outing when she caught Big Bertha, is materially irrelevant. The original offer contained no stipulation,
whether express or implied, concerning the need to engage in formal participation, or concerning the need
to in some way register participation (or formally accept the offer). As in Carlill, it is submitted that
performance of the terms of the offer will be deemed to constitute its legal acceptance (a rule of policy
flowing from Williams v Carwardine (1833) ). Station has only itself to blame, if it wished to run the
competition under more specific and formal terms regarding entry and participation, it need only have
specified those terms ab initio in its advertisements.
Summary
On the facts presented, it is accordingly advised that Betty will be able to enforce Stations promise to pay
$5000.

Case 2: Rahim was negotiating to purchase the plaintiffs large estate which was subject to a number of
encumbrances. The plaintiff wrote, without legal assistance, I am prepared to offer you my estate for
$600,000 I also agree that a reasonable and sufficient time shall be granted to you for examination ad
consideration of all data and details necessary for the preparation of the schedule of completion. The
plaintiff later informed the defendant that the price was too low and proposed a meeting until the pending
negotiations for the sale and purchase may have more nearly reached definite agreement. The defendant
later sought to accept the offer of $600.000.
Case 3: The City Council adopted a policy of selling council houses to tenants. The respondent tenant
applied on a printed form for details of the price and mortgage term. The city treasurer wrote to the
respondent that the Council may be prepared to sell the house to you at the purchase price of $2,725 less
20% = $2180. The letter gave details of the mortgage likely to be made available and stated If you
would like to make a formal application to buy .please complete the enclosed application form and
return it to me as soon as possible. The respondent completed the form and returned it on 5 March. He
wrote again on 18 March, requesting the Council to carry on with the purchase in accordance with his
application. Before contracts were prepared and exchanged political control of the Council changed and
the Council decided to proceed with sales oly where contracts had already been exchanged. The
respondent sought specific performance of the contract, claiming that the offer in the city treasurers letter
had been accepted by him in his letters of 5 and 18 March.