However, if more facts can be ascertained over the situation, a bi-lateral agreement could have been concluded if Ron had made promises to Sally concerning the agreement in question. This means that a valid offer and acceptance has to be found for there to be a chance of enforcing contractual obligations, this is also termed as the “dual requirement”.
The offer must be capable of being accepted by another person/party, invitations to treat do not constitute to an offer as established in Partridge v Crittenden [1968] where the defendant placed an article in the newspaper advertising rare birds for sale, but as he had not stated a price within the advert, he was inviting people to come forward and make an offer to him, rather than him offering them. This can be ruled out of Ron’s situation because Sally has not invited him to make an offer to her.
The acceptance of the offer, through Ron answering the questions brings the offer to an end and creates an agreement between the two parties; by answering the questions Ron has agreed to the terms and conditions of the offer effectively, this offer cannot now be revoked and Sally would be obliged to place Ron’s name into the prize draw for holiday tickets. Hyde v Wrench (1840) established the authority on the ‘mirror-image’ rule, which means the acceptance must equate to the offer terms, neither being inadequate or too much so, without this there can be no agreement.
The communication of the acceptance is another important area to consider when trying to establish a contract, instantaneous communication as discussed in Entores v Miles [1955] deemed that methods of communication like telex, phone calls and other forms of electronic communication which meant that contracts could be concluded as though the parties were face to face were binding acceptances for offers made. Applying this ruling to the scenario in question, it would appear that Ron made instantaneous acceptance because he was speaking through a device which made instant communication possible, so long as the line didn’t go dead at the time of the answering of the questions, then it can be established that Ron has made a bi-lateral agreement with Sally over the phone. He has also adhered to the prescribed mode of acceptance for the agreement terms; this means that Ron hasn’t sent his acceptance via e-mail, which would be seen to be unreasonable in the eyes of the law. At this point, it can be said that the contractual position of Ron over Sally is looking stronger based on the offer and acceptance which has been concluded.
On the other hand, intention to create legal relations is another aspect to be considered when trying to enforce a contract during a legal dispute. Without that intention to create legal relations within the agreement, the case will not stand in court. An uncertain agreement is no agreement at all, which can be seen in the case of Scammell (G) & Nephew Ltd v HC & JG Ouston [1941] is often the case that the offer and agreement are present and correct, but when it comes to finding the intention to create a legally binding contract, many issues can rear their ugly head. For it to be enforceable by the Courts, the facts would need to state what conversation was actually discussed between the disputing parties, vague or ambiguous language can be deemed incomplete with regard to the contractual agreement and therefore would not be enforceable by the court. Commercial agreements, as in this context are generally assumed to be enforceable; nevertheless this statement is entirely rebuttable based on the facts of each case. Domestic/Social agreements do not give rise to creating legal intentions, as the authority in Balfour v Balfour [1919] determined. Applying these rulings to the scenario, it would appear that this setting was meant to be in a commercial context, or cold calling as it is often referred to.
The fact that the performance of what was requested was done so quickly, this is known as an executed agreement, because Ron has performed his side of the bargain for Sally by answering the questions she requested from him. With the leading authority on Hillas & Co. v Arcos Ltd. (1932), it is more likely that an executed agreement will be far more workable and followed up than an executory agreement, where neither side of the parties concerned have carried out their obligations yet. Applying this to the situation, it can be seen that Ron is in a much stronger position for having the contract enforced due to the fact that he has performed his obligation to Sally and is waiting upon Sally’s return for the questions he answered, despite the uncertain nature on which the agreement was concluded.
The most controversial aspect of the English contract law is consideration. Consideration according to Lush, J’s definition in Currie v Misa (1875) is “a valuable consideration in any sense of the law may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered or undertaken by the other.
There should normally be two sides of consideration to include when coming to a decision on the matter, but it will depend on who is suing who. The consideration benefit or detriment must be legally sufficient in the eyes of the law; if not it will not be consideration in the eyes of the law. Chappell v Nestle Co Ltd. [1960] established that it did not matter that the items in question were of very little economic value but that they were deemed to be part of the consideration. This means that parties are free to apply their own valuations to agreements; therefore consideration should be able to be established in this case, as the terms to both sides have been agreed upon.
To establish if giving up information equates to being legally sufficient, I would need to know what kind of questions were asked during the conversation between Ron and Sally. Giving up a legal right to do something counts as consideration which was decided in Pitt v PHH Asset Management Ltd [1994], however giving up something which you had no right to do in the first place does not, which was considered in White v Bluett (1852); and so consideration depends upon whether the information given would constitute as a legal detriment to the offeree. At this point more facts would need to be ascertained to understand whether consideration is available to the parties of the agreement.
With regards to the contractual position of Ron against Sally as she hasn’t entered his name into the prize draw event, even though he answered the questions, it would appear that Ron is in a strong position for getting the agreement enforced.
With regard to the situation concerning Julie and Sally, Sally has basically made a uni-lateral offer to the world by saying “Anyone who got all the answers correct would get a free vacuum cleaner”. As in the leading case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Ltd. [1893] which established the fundamental principles of a uni-lateral contract, that offers made of this kind are intended to attract custom and was supported by the deposit of money in the bank. This case established that the advertisement is an offer to pay a reward to anyone who performs the act in question, in this case it is the taking part in the quiz and getting all the answers correct that forms the act which means you would receive a free vacuum cleaner. The performance of the act constitutes acceptance of a uni-lateral offer. The offeror in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Ltd. [1893] had waived the right for the normal requirement of communication of acceptance, so performance of the act constituted acceptance. This appears to be the same regarding the issue with Julie and Sally. Applying this concept to the scenario, it appears that the offer of a free vacuum cleaner was made to a group of people exceeding the number of vacuum cleaners available without specifying this. If it had been an offer specifying the amount of vacuum cleaners available, then the outcome of this would have been different. The acceptance of the offer was notified to Sally when Julie took part in the quiz and got all the answers correct; this is an executed acceptance regardless of whether she was personally invited by Sally or not, due to the offer communicated by Sally to the group of people. It could be argued that offer was made so vague that it did not amount to an offer at all, but based on the facts, there are strong grounds for having the uni-lateral contract enforced as there has been consideration on both sides of the parties.
Bibliography
Cases
Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Ltd. [1893] 1 QB 256
Chappell & Co. v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 87
Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327
Hillas (WN) & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd (1932) 147 LT 503
Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334, 49 ER 132
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204
Pitt v PHH Asset Management Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 327
Scammell (G) & Nephew Ltd v HC & JG Ouston [1941] AC 251
White v Bluett (1852) 23 LJ Ex 36
Books
Jill Poole, Casebook on Contract Law, (9th ed.), United States, Oxford University Press Inc., 2008
Richard & Damian Taylor, Contract Law, (2nd ed.), United States, Oxford University Press Inc., 2009
