A contract by definition is an agreement between two parties by which both parties are bound by the

Authors Avatar


BETWEEN:                                                ERIC POLLARD           (APPELLANT)


                                                                    VIV WINDSOR            (RESPONDENT)



 Viv Windsor bought a local shop and a computer,

 Anxious to please the locals, put an advert in the local news paper on a Saturday, stating that she would sell luxury chocolate shortbread for £2.50 instead of the recommended retail price of £5.

She also stated that anyone wanting the shortbread should email her or come to the shop.

Eric pollard, the appellant saw the email at 4.30pm on Saturday and sent her email on the same day.

 She realised that evening that she was making lose so she decided to revoke the advert.

She contacted the newspaper who published her revocation 9.am the next morning.

The paper got delivered to Eric at 10.30am

 Viv checked her email at 10.35am,

She replied stating that the discount was no longer available.

Eric sued her for breach of contract.


There was no contract between Viv and Eric since the notice in the paper was not an offer but an invitation to treat.




A contract by definition is an agreement between two parties by which both parties are bound by the law and which can therefore be enforced in a court or other equivalent forum. The law of contract has been known to bring equality and fairness especially to consumers whom are said to be more disadvantaged than suppliers/ sellers. Statutes have also been developed for example, sales of goods act (1979) and the unfair terms in consumer contract regulations (1994) but does this mean that consumers are the only ones with rights when it comes to contract? Should sellers be bound to sell their goods forcefully due to the law of contract? The answer to these questions is somewhat obvious as the law of contract didn’t come into existence to bring injustice or limitations to just one party. The ruling of the case of, Felthouse V Bindley (1862) makes it clear what the law of contract is there for. Which amongst many more reasons is the fact that, obligation cannot be imposed on another party. Eric saw Viv’s advert on the newspaper and automatically assumed that even without communication or consensus ad idem (meeting of the mind) Viv was under an obligation to sell her goods.

Join now!

The main problem in this case is the inability of Eric to understand the law of contract. In this case, the offerror and the offeree need to be established in order to know who acceptance really lies upon. When the offeree and the offeror plus who should accept have been established, we also need to know whether there was an intention to be legally bound. Knowing the general shopping principles which states that, the display or advertisement in a small section of a newspaper, internet E.T.C is an invitation to treat and that customer offers to buy the goods ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay


A good essay in parts. But the fact that the student fails to address acceptance - central to understanding this problem question - means marks have been lost. 3 Stars.