Corporation Law

Running head: CORPORATION LAW
CORPORATION LAW
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

CORPORATION LAW1
Part A: Contract law
Option 1:
Issues:
The issues that appear in the present case study are;
a) Whether Soo burger has the duty to provide the Mazda car to Mickey,
b) Whether Soo burger has the duty to provide the Mazda car to Brett.
Rule of law:
An agreement of the contract provides the rights and duties of the parties to the contract
as in R v Clarke [1927] HCA 47. An agreement is formed when one party expresses his intention
to another party by making an offer to bind himself with another with the terms of the contract as
in Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 52. When
the other party accepts the offer without any condition a valid acceptance occurs resulting into an
agreement as seen in Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) 142 E.R. 1037. Acceptance must always
correspond to the offer and it is required to be unconditional and unequivocal as in Spencer's
Pictures Ltd v Cosens [1918] NSWStRp 1, (1918) 18 SR (NSW) 102.
But offer is not same as invitation to offer. In fact there exists huge difference between
them. Invitation to treat or offer is a proposal made to the public inviting them to make offers for
negotiating a contract as in Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd

CORPORATION LAW2
[1956] EWCA 6. Offer when it is accepted results into an agreement but invitation to treat or
offer when accepted results into an offer.
In this respect unilateral offer also deserves mention. When a contract is formed after
offer is made in such a way that its acceptance occurs by means of performing anything it is
known as unilateral contract. The unilateral contract is generally created when the offeror makes
an offer not to any specific party but to people in general and the acceptance results on
performing the condition present in the offer as in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
[1892] EWCA 1, [1893] 1 QB 256.
The revocation of an offer results when the party making offer wishes to withdraw it as in
Payne v Cave (1789) 3 TR 148. Valid replication occurs if two conditions are filled firstly
revocation offer must be made before the offer is accepted and such message of revocation must
be communicated to the offeree. It is not needed that the revocation has to be communicated by
the offeror only but it is equally valid if it is communicated by any other person like a third party.
Application:
In the recent case it appears that the SOO burgers in order to boost its business started a
promotion according to which wrapper of the burger will be attached with a token, when 50 such
tokens are collected then scratch card will be given. One lucky customer will get a golden car
after scratching the card. Here though the offer is made in the form of an invitation to offer, it
cannot be considered so as it has an embedded condition with it that has to be satisfied to create
the agreement. From these, a unilateral offer can be said to be made by the SOO burger company
as in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. Here the offer is made in such a way that its
acceptance occurs by means of performing anything it is known as unilateral contract. The