Business Law

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

1BUSINESS LAW
Question 1
Issue
Whether Ben has a right to claim $100,000 from that Mojo Beverage.
Rule
The contract laws prevailing in Australia is concerned about the enforceability of promises
under law, which was entered into by the parties by way of a freely consented bargain
forming a legal relation between them. At its present form, the Australian Contract Law has
deviated to a considerable extent from its initial English Common Law touch. An agreement
to achieve the status of a valid contract needs to satisfy five essential elements, namely, an
agreement, consideration for both the parties, capacity of both the parties to contract, the
intention of the parties to create legal relationship and the certainty of the terms of the
contract.
An agreement is created between two parties by way of an offer accompanied by an
acceptance of that offer. The acceptance of an offer needs to be communicated by the offeree
or by any person his behalf. However, in case of an offer made to the public an express
communication of the acceptance is not mandatory, the offeree might accept the offer by
acting upon the same. This principle has evolved with the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke
Ball Company [1892] EWCA 1. This can further be illustrated with the case of R v Clarke
[1927] HCA 47.
An offer can be extinguished by revocation of the same before the communication of the
acceptance. In the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) LR 5 CPD 344, the revocation is
required to be communicated by the offeror or by any person on behalf of the offeror.
However, an alteration in the terms of the offer results in the counter offer and an acceptance
of the same forms a new contract. This can be illustrated by the with the case of Hyde v

2BUSINESS LAW
Wrench. Hyde v Wrench [1840] EWHC Ch J90. In the case of Dickinson v Dodds (1875) 2
Ch D 463, it has been held that the communication of the revocation is not necessarily to be
conveyed by the offeree or a person acting on his behalf, the revocation communicated by a
third party is also valid.
Application
In the given situation, Mojo Beverages has placed an advertisement in a newspaper
circulated in locally offering to pay $100,000 to any person who catches Lord Harry, a trout
which they have tagged and released into the lake. This can be treated as an offer made to the
public by applying the principle laid down in the case of R v Clarke [1927] HCA 47. The
acceptance of the same can be effected by the offeree by simply acting upon the offer.
The offer has been communicated to the public and the same has made the public to show
their willingness to act upon the same, as the people has gathered in the lake area with a view
to catch Lord Harry. This shows the willingness of the public to be bound by the terms of the
contract. In case, a person acting in the furtherance of the willingness catches the fish this
will bind Mojo Beverages to the terms of the contract and they will be required to pay the
consideration money to the person acting upon the offer. This can be supported with the case
of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA 1.
However, there was a rumour that has spread among the people in the lake area willing to
act upon the offer that the money offered was $1,000 and the amount of $100,000 was an
error in the advertisement. This has been confirmed by the Mojo Beverages by way of an
announcement. This implies a counter offer as the alteration of the terms of the previous offer
implies a counter offer. This can be illustrated with the case of Hyde v Wrench. Hyde v
Wrench [1840] EWHC Ch J90. The person acting upon the terms of this counter offer binds
himself with the terms of the counter offer.