Business Law

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

BUSINESS LAW1
Part A
Issue a)
Whether Mickey can claim the Mazda CX-9s from SOO Burgers.
Rule
Any contract that has been created in a valid manner will be would confer upon the parties
to such contract with rights and obligations in compliance to the terms of the contract and the
parties are to discharge their duties under the contract. However, for creating a valid contract,
the essential elements of the same needs to be ensured which covers an agreement consisting
of a valid offer being accepted, the intention of the parties to create legal relations, the ability
of the individuals involved to create contract and the certainty of the subject matter of the
same. This can be supported with the case of Appleson v Littlewoods 1939.
An invitation to treat cannot be treated as a valid offer as the same needs to be treated as
an invitation to negotiate a contract. However, as per the principles evolving with the case of
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1, the advertisements that
includes certain terms, which claims to provide a reward to the individual meeting the
condition needs to be considered as a unilateral offer and the same is rendered accepted as
soon as an individual performs the condition provided.
As per the principles established in the case of Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co
[1880] 5 CPD 344, it has been contended by the court that the offer is said to revoked as soon
as it has been communicated to the offeree before the acceptance of the same.

BUSINESS LAW2
Application
In the present situation, there has been a promotion made by SOO Burgers, where any
customer collecting 50 tokens from the wrapper of “Double Decker Emu Berger” and
availing a golden scratch ticket from the counter by presenting those tokens if gets a golden
car written over the scratch card after scratching the same will be awarded by a Mazda CX-9
by the restaurant. This can be treated as an advertisement that claims to provide a reward to
any individual intended to be targeted by the same meeting the conditions of the
advertisement as per the principles established in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1.
Mickey purchased 50 of these burgers and availed a golden scratch ticket. However,
owing to the excessive intake of such burgers he passed out and has been admitted to the
hospital. In the meantime it has been discovered that only one of the scratch tickets was
supposed to connecting a golden car written on it. However an erroneous printing has made
golden car printed on more than one of the scratch cards. This has been announced in the
radio and the news of the same has reached Mickey through the nurses of the hospital who
were discussing the same as a fiasco. On being aware of the same Mickey scratched the ticket
and found a golden card written on the same. This cannot be treated as a valid acceptance of
the unilateral offer as the acceptance has been made after the communication of the
revocation of the offer. This is because Micky has been aware of the revocation of the offer
prior to the scratching of the golden ticket. Hence, applying the principles established in the
case of Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co [1880] 5 CPD 344, it can be stated that no
contract has been formed between Mickey and SOO Burgers as Micky has been
communicated with the revocation prior to the acceptance.