logo

Business Law of Mojo Beverages

   

Added on  2021-06-15

9 Pages2344 Words55 Views
Running Head: BUSINESS LAWBusiness LawName of the Student:Name of the University:Author Note

1BUSINESS LAWAnswer 1Issue Whether Ben can claim $100,000 from Mojo Beverages in the light of rules relating to therevocation of an offerRule In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 it had been stated bythe court that once a unilateral offer which has been made through an advertisement is actedupon a contract is formed. The case also stated that renovation has to be in a similar way ascompared to the offer. It had been ruled by the court in the case of Payne v Cave (1789) 3 TR 148 that an offer can bewithdrawn through the process of revocation of offer. The court stated that a revocation of offercan be done any time before there has been an actual acceptance of the offer. In the case of Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co [1880] 5 CPD 344 it had been stated bythe court that the revocation of offer has to be directly or indirectly signified to the offeree(s). Inthis case the defendant sent a letter for revocation and claimed the postal rule to enforce therevocation which did not reach the offeree. The court stated that revocation has to be received tobe valid. In addition it had been stated by the court in the case of Dickinson v Dodds. (1876) 2 Ch D 46that it is not necessary for an offer to be sufficiently communicated and the revocation is valideven if the information for the revocation has been provided by a third party. In this case it had

2BUSINESS LAWbeen stated by the court that where a reasonable person would have believed that the offer hadbeen revoked than an offer would be actually revoked effectively. In Errington v Errington Woods [1952] 1 KB 290 the court ruled that once the party had reliedupon the offer and embarked upon it the offer is no longer available to be revoked. Application It has been provided through the situation that Mojo has made an advertisement that any personwho caught a special fish form the river would be entitled to receive a price of $10000. As perthe case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company once a unilateral offer which has been madethrough an advertisement is acted upon a contract is formed thus when the fish was caught byBen the contract was formed. However in the case of Payne v Cave the court stated that offer canbe withdrawn through the process of revocation of offer before acceptance is made. Thus if Mojoeffectively withdraws the offer there is no contract. In Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven &Co the court ruled that the revocation may be direct or indirect. Here there are chances ofindirect revocation through rumors. Moreover in the case of Dickinson v Dodds the court heldthat revocation is valid even if the information for the revocation has been provided by a thirdparty. However a reasonable person would not have believed on rumors. In addition therepresentatives of Mojo did not notify Ben about the flaw in the pricing which was attempted tobe changed from $100000 to $1000. Thus it can be stated that the offer was not revoked and assoon as Ben caught the fish the contract was formed. Conclusion Ben has a valid claim against Mojo

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Business and Corporate Law: Contract Law and Corporations Act 2001
|12
|571
|395

Business Law Assignment - Desklib
|9
|2798
|59

Case Study: SOO Burgers and Mazda CX-9
|19
|1719
|71

[pdf] Business Laws Assignment
|14
|3586
|39

Business Law
|10
|2375
|443

Business Laws - Solved Assignment PDF
|18
|3451
|26