Contract Law and Director's Duties under Corporations Act

Business law
Part A, Option 1
Part B, Option 2

The issues are:
 whether SOO Burgers is responsible to
provide Mickey with the car under the
contract law.
 whether SOO Burgers is responsible to
provide Brett with the car under the
contract law.
Issues:

a) Mickey
 In
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] it was held that the advertisements which are seen as
being published in newspapers or any other form of media should always be
considered to be ‘invitation to offer’ and not actual offer. Following this judgment it can
be seen that an individual who has published an advertisement is not legally bound for
following the advertisement.
 According to the decision of
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] an
advertisement which can be seen as containing any kind of term for rewards is
required for being treated as an offer that is binding towards the offeror for any
individual accepting the offer. The judgment of the case provides the description of an
offer to be proposal given by one of the parties for any specific arrangement to the
other party and when the party to whom the offer is made is seen to be making the
declaration of acceptance of the offer in written or oral way it is called acceptance to
the offer.
 The judgment of
Byrne v Van Tienhoven & Co. [1880] held that the revocation of an
offer is required to be made before the offer has been accepted and the notice for the
revocation is needed to be communicated to the offeree in a direct and indirect way.
 In
Dickinson v Dodds [1876] the judges held that the revocation of any offer is not
necessary for being communicated by the individual making the offer to the offeree in
a personal or direct manner.
Rules applicable:

For Brett:
 In
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] it was held by the judges in the
court that the advertisements which are seen as being published
in newspapers or any other form of media should always be
considered to be ‘invitation to offer’ and not actual offer.
 According to the decision of
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball, an
advertisement which can be seen as containing any kind of term
for rewards is required for being treated as an offer that is binding
towards the offeror for any individual accepting the offer.
 According to
Appleby v Johnson [1874] a contract is only seen as
forming between the two parties when the offeree accepts the
offer in oral or written terms.
 In
Payne v Cave [1789] it was held by the judges that the
withdrawal of any offer can be done only by way of revocation
process when there has been no acceptance made by the offeree.
Rules applicable: