The facts of the question indicate that it is a unilateral contract. A unilateral contract is where one party promises to do something in return for an act of the other party. If an offeree has accepted a unilateral offer and has begun completing the act but not yet finished it, revocation of that offer will not be effective. The offeror may not be able to revoke the offer because it would be seen as incomplete acceptance from the offeree. Dipika’s advertisement can be seen as an offer because she had stated specific terms in the offer with the television and her address and phone number. An offer is a definite promise to be bound provided certain specific terms are accepted. Therefore the offer can be accepted by fulfilling the required act, which in this case is a Panasonic television that will be sold to the first person that sends a cheque of £400; Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893).
Edwardo and Dipika do not have a legal binding contract since he has not fulfilled the condition asked by Dipika. Dipika specifically has offered the Panasonic television for £400. Edwardo in legal terms has rejected the offer made by Dipika and has made an offer himself. He had made a counter-offer which is a conditional acceptance. This means that the acceptance is introducing new terms or conditions, for example, the offeree decides to offer less money to the offeror. In this case, Edwardo sends a cheque for £375 and not £400. When a counter-offer is made, the original offer disappears. This means that the original offer has been rejected by the offeree and it can no longer be accepted; Hyde v Wrench (1840). In accordance with the facts Dipika is under no legal obligation to accept Edwardo's offer and has shown no indication that she actually has.
With regards to Fang, he would have completed Dipika's condition on the 1st September. Legally, one view is that Dipika has until 1st September to revoke her offer. On 7th July Dipika has donated the television, which shows that she revoked the offer. Revocation is when the offeror can withdraw their offer. There was no legal binding contract between the two parties since the condition set by Dipika had not been fulfilled, and Dipika could withdraw the offer any time up until 1st September; Great Northern Railway Co v Witham (1873).
On the other hand, it would have been wrong for Dipika to donate the television, as Fang gave a £200 deposit which means there has been some performance from Fang. This could be considered that Dipika has an implied obligation on Fang not to withdraw the offer; Errington v Errington and Woods (1952). The Postal Acceptance rule could also be used to not revoke the offer. Dipika says in the offer to send her a cheque of £400 to her address so that would be by post. If post is the appropriate method of acceptance, ‘the acceptance is made and the contract complete as soon as the letter is put in the post box whether it arrives or not’. The acceptance is made and Fang has performed some of the acceptance; Adams v Lindsell (1818).
Therefore, the implied obligation consists of waiting for Fang to complete the action within a reasonable time period. The courts would have to consider whether waiting until September is reasonable for Dipika or not. If considered reasonable then Dipika legally cannot revoke the offer, and if it is considered that waiting until September was not reasonable then Dipika would be able to revoke the offer.
In the offer from Dipika it clearly states cheque, therefore Gary has not fully completed Dipika's condition, and so there is no binding contract between the two parties.
Harriet and Dipika have no legal binding contract between themselves as Dipika legally can revoke the offer at any time until it has been accepted. Harriet attempted to accept the offer on the 8th July, but was not accepted as Dipika had revoked the offer on the 7th July by donating the television. If Dipika had stated that the offer was to be open for a certain time period, then it may have got tricky. However, according to the facts there wasn’t a time specified and so Dipika could revoke the offer at any point before it is accepted; Payne v Cave (1789).
Dipika could inform the four people that the offer has been revoked, but she is not legally obliged to. Edwardo makes a counter-offer (conditional acceptance) and this is not seen as a valid acceptance. It is Dipika’s decision on whether to accept or reject the offer.
Fang is accepting the offer and is in the process of completing it. It would be wrong for Dipika to revoke the offer. Dipika might have an implied obligation on Fang and revocation would therefore not be effective as Fang has begun completing the offer.
Garry has not met the conditions of the offer and so there is no binding contract between him and Dipika.
Dipika had donated the television before Harriet had accepted the offer so she is allowed to revoke the offer before acceptance is received. Dipika is not in a legal binding contract with Harriet.
On the other hand, if Edwardo, Fang, Garry and Harriet did not know that the television was donated then Felthouse v Bindley (1862) would apply because silence cannot be acceptance. They would argue between them on which one would get the television. Fang performed some of the act before the television was sold so Fang does have a case but Harriet did meet the conditions of the offer. Furthermore, Dipika would need to return the money to the four people if she has no binding contract with any of the four people.
Reference List
Caplan S. (2009-2010) Lecture Slide notes
(2009-2010) Cases on Formation of a Contract
Keenan D. (2007) Smith & Keenan’s English Law 15th ed, Harlow: Pearson Longman
Zalkin G. (2009-2010) Seminar notes
Word Count: 1,209 (excl. title and reference list)
