Consumer law : offer and acceptance on claim

Authors Avatar
Consumer law : offer and acceptance on claim To establish whether James has a case against 'Detox Ltd' we have to find evidence of a contract between himself and 'Detox Ltd'. Contracts are generally formed when two parties exchange promises and have reached agreement. This exchange has to have been formed on the basis of an 'offer' by one party and an 'acceptance' by another with the 'intent' to form a bilateral contract which is legally binding. The intent is generally regarded as being objective, with the court looking at what is said and done rather than trying to piece together what went on in the minds of the people involved. See Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 ALL ER 972. However, advertisements such as 'Detox's' do not require any communicated acceptance: A poster asking for the apprehension of a criminal and upon that apprehension a reward is given is referred to, as a unilateral contract. This is because no one actually has to look for the criminal, no promise is made to do so, no one is legally bound to do so, it is said 'to be an offer to the whole world'. One party with no need for any other negotiations makes the reward or offer. The 'acceptance' of this type of contract is in the actual performance, or specified conduct, which is required to receive the reward, looking for, finding, and then delivering to the offeror. See Errington v Errington [1952] 1 ALL ER 149 and Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co [1893] 1 QB 256. In Errington v Errington; A father who gave a house to his daughter and son in law, on the condition that they keep up the mortgage payments, was held to be a unilateral contract, and the mortgage payments were considered to be the performance, even though the father died, the offer of the house could not be revoked as the performance, the payments had already started. When this 'acceptance' takes place is some what unclear, but in Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1978] 2 ALL ER 557; Goff LJ stated; ' There must be an implied obligation on the part of the offeror not to
Join now!
prevent the condition becoming satisfied, which obligation it seems to me must arise as soon as the offeree starts to perform'. This statement suggests that it would be unjust for the offeror to withdraw the offer once the offeree has started the performance. This point is strengthened in the decision of Errington v Errington, explained above. James did not make an offer or make a promise to 'Detox', so we have to establish if the advertisement which he saw, was in fact an 'offer'. Advertisements such as those found in magazines, newspapers and shop displays are generally considered to be ...

This is a preview of the whole essay