Business and Corporate Law: Case Analysis and Application of Legal Rules

Running head: BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW
BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW1
TOC

BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW2
Part A- Option 1
Issue 1
The issue in the given case is whether SOO Burgers is liable to provide Mickey with
the Mazda CX-9s he is claiming.
Rule
Any advertisement that has been published in the newspapers or hoardings are
required to be considered as ‘invitation to offer’ instead of treating it as an actual offer as was
held by the court in the case Partridge v Crittenden [1968]. As per the decision of the case
anyone publishing any advertisement would not be bound towards that advertisement.
Any advertisement that contains any term for a reward would be treated as a binding
offer towards anyone who is seen as accepting the same as was held by the judges in the
landmark case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893]. According to the case an
offer is the proposal of a particular kind of arrangement given by one party to another party
can be known as offer and when the party to whom the offer has been made declares to be
accepting the same in writing or orally it is an acceptance of the offer.
The revocation of an offer can be done by the offeror before the acceptance of an
offer and the revocation is required to be communicated to the offeree either directly or
indirectly as seen in the case Byrne v Van Tienhoven & Co. [1880].
In the judgment of the case Dickinson v Dodds [1876] it was held that there is no
requirement that the revocation of the offer is to be communicated by the offeror to the
offeree personally. Even if the offeree heard the revocation “on the grapevine” then also the
revocation would be considered as effective.