In a unilateral offer, the acceptance relies on the obligation of offeror. For example, if a store offers a discount, only the store is obligated. No one has promised to take the store up on the offer, but if someone does, the store is responsible to give the discount. Even so, sometimes, the unilateral offer may arise some problems because the offeror makes an offer to the whole world. According to the case: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Led (1893, CA). (Adams, 2012) The manufacturers made an offer, which promised if the consumer still caught influenza after using their product correctly, they will pay £100 to the user, and stated a £1000 bank account as an acceptance. As can be seen, the offeror, which is the manufacturers said to have gave up the right for communication of acceptance, because in a unilateral offer, it is not necessary that each of the parties to expressly communicate their acceptance. Acceptance can be made by fully performing the act and would be deemed to be valid if all the precise details were followed which in the case of Carlill required the offeree to take the smoke ball according to instructions to stop the flu. However there can be no acceptance of the offer without the knowledge of the offer. An offer can be revocable if the offeree known nothing to the offer: Gibbons v Proctor (1891). (Santiago, 2009)
In a bilateral offer, if the offer needs to be accepted, both parties’ promises must to be performed, such as an agreement to sell a case of books to a school which has agreed to buy the book at a certain price. As a whole, an acceptance only becomes effective when it is received by the offeror. However, in some situations where the bilateral offer is made by the post or any instantaneous methods this rule is different. Thus, in order to avoid objection happen, the post rule has been created as to provide an exception to the usual communication. In the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) (Adams, 2012), the defendant sent an offer to the claimant on October 1st. After a week he changed his mind, so he sent a letter of revocation. But three days later, the offer made by defendant is arrived and the claimant sent a telegram of agreement. On October 15th, the claimant sent a letter as an acceptation. Finally, the letter of revocation was received on 20 October. In this instance the Court believed that the acceptance was made when the offeree sent a telegram of acceptance. And the revocation is not effective because of the revocation was too late received by the claimant until 20 October. According to the case, the post rule shows the legally binding of a bilateral offer, which provides an acceptance takes place as soon as letter is validly posted but effective within a time limit when put in hands of Post Office.
In conclusion, as can be seen, whether it is a unilateral offer or a bilateral offer, the law provides certainty for businesses when the parties making an offer in any situations. But no matter to make which kind of offer, the offer must be in accordance with the legally binding offer. And the parties must be careful if the offer made by them has any legal loopholes.
Reference:
Adams, A. (2012). Law for Business Students(7th Edition). England: Pearson.
Castle, A. (2009, May 17). Offer and Acceptance. Retrieved May 9, 2012, from Legal Norms: http://www.legalnorms.com/offer-and-acceptance.php
Doyle, A. (2007, October 28). Bilateral and Unilateral Offers. Retrieved May 9, 2012, from Placefornotes: http://placefornotes.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/bilateral-and-unilateral-offers.html
Doyle, J. (2009, May 27). What Is the Difference Between a Bilateral Offer & a Unilateral Offer in Business? Retrieved May 9, 2012, from Small Business: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-bilateral-offer-unilateral-offer-business-33129.html
Santiago, J. (2009, April 23). Unilateral Contracts. Retrieved May 9, 2012, from What's Your Problem? : http://justin-santiago.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/unilateral-contracts.html
Page of
by
victor_law (student)
