Obligation Of SSO Burgers Case Study 2022

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

BUSINESS LAW1
Part A
a) Issue
Whether SOO Burgers are obligated to provide Mickey with the Mazda CX-9 as has been
claimed by him.
Rule
The parties to a contract are bound by the obligation to carry out their part of the contract
as the contravention of such contractual obligations would lead them to be liable legally.
However, the enforceability of these obligations only holds good, if the same has arisen in
connection with a validly created contract as has been contended in the case of George
Hudson Holdings Ltd v Rudder [1973] 128 CLR 387. A valid contract needs to be instituted
with the a genuine offer and the same being accepted in the presence of the intentions of the
parties to be bound by a legal relation as can be discussed with the case of Smith v Hughes
(1871) LR 6 QB 597.
A valid offer does not include an invitation to offer as the party to whom such an
invitation has been made needs to make an offer against it and not an acceptance of the same.
This can be inferred from the principles established in the case of Partridge v Crittenden
[1968] 1 WLR 1204. However, if such an invitation has been accompanied by a promise of
reward on certain condition being fulfilled, the same would amount to unilateral offer and
fulfilment of the condition would create a valid contract as has been made evident with the
case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1.
The revocation of a valid offer is effective as soon as it comes to the knowledge of the
offeree. This can be elucidated with the case of Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co
[1880] 5 CPD 344.

BUSINESS LAW2
Application
As can be seen from the facts of the instant case, SOO Burgers has announced an
promotion to award any customer with a Mazda CX-9, that customer has purchased 50
“Double Decker Emu Berger”, collect the tokens attached to it, obtained a golden scratch
card and the scratching of the card has revealed a golden car being written on the same. This
can be treated as an advertisement for reward and the same would end up in a contract being
accepted if the condition has been met. This can be supported with the case of Carlill v
Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1.
In case of Mickey, he bought the 50 of those burgers, collected the tokens and availed the
golden scratch card with the same. However, he passed out for having 50 burgers and the
same has resulted in he being hospitalised. However, in the hospital, he has come to know
that the company announced promotion to be erroneously executed as only one of the scratch
cards was supposed to contain the golden card but every one of the five has been printed with
the same. The card has been scratched by Mickey and revealed with a golden card after he
was aware of this as has come up with the case of Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co
[1880] 5 CPD 344. This can be treated as a valid revocation as the same has come to the
knowledge of Mickey prior to the acceptance. Hence, he cannot claim the Mazda CX-9.
Conclusion
SOO Burgers are obligated to provide Mickey with the Mazda CX-9 as has been claimed
by him.
b) Issue
Whether SOO Burgers are obligated to provide Brett with the Mazda CX-9 as has been
claimed by him.