In order for Pat to claim both rewards from Den, she has to prove that both claims are offers and they result in contract formation. Furthermore, for the first offer to hold, Den should not be able to withdraw it.
An offer is an expression made by an offeror to an offeree, communicating the offeror’s willingness to perform a promise and intent to be bound upon acceptance by the offeree. In this case, both statements included the exact time, date and conditions, thus, leaving no room for negotiation and hence intention to be bound is present and communicated from an objective by-stander’s point of view. Hence, both statements are offers.
The offers are made via the newspapers which is meant to reach huge crowds, and hence, they are made to everyone and for anyone to accept. Furthermore, as the contracts are “contract(s) brought into existence by the act of one party (offeree) in response to a conditional promise by another”: Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada(CI) Ltd & Ors (1984), the offers are unilateral contracts.
Issue 1: Termination of First Offer by Den via a Fresh Offer
In order for Pat to claim the first reward, she has to prove that Den is unable to terminate his first offer when he tried to withdraw it while presenting a fresh offer through another newspaper.
For a unilateral contract, “the …show more content…
Similarly, Pat gave no consideration and formed no intention vis-à-vis to the new reward. She was in the appropriate outfit, at the right location and swam through the designated place because her car broke down whilst travelling back after completing the conditions for the first reward. Both conditions for the second offer were met solely due to consideration and intention for the first reward. No intention and consideration were given by Pat for the second offer and hence, Pat cannot claim the second
An offer is an expression made by an offeror to an offeree, communicating the offeror’s willingness to perform a promise and intent to be bound upon acceptance by the offeree. In this case, both statements included the exact time, date and conditions, thus, leaving no room for negotiation and hence intention to be bound is present and communicated from an objective by-stander’s point of view. Hence, both statements are offers.
The offers are made via the newspapers which is meant to reach huge crowds, and hence, they are made to everyone and for anyone to accept. Furthermore, as the contracts are “contract(s) brought into existence by the act of one party (offeree) in response to a conditional promise by another”: Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada(CI) Ltd & Ors (1984), the offers are unilateral contracts.
Issue 1: Termination of First Offer by Den via a Fresh Offer
In order for Pat to claim the first reward, she has to prove that Den is unable to terminate his first offer when he tried to withdraw it while presenting a fresh offer through another newspaper.
For a unilateral contract, “the …show more content…
Similarly, Pat gave no consideration and formed no intention vis-à-vis to the new reward. She was in the appropriate outfit, at the right location and swam through the designated place because her car broke down whilst travelling back after completing the conditions for the first reward. Both conditions for the second offer were met solely due to consideration and intention for the first reward. No intention and consideration were given by Pat for the second offer and hence, Pat cannot claim the second