Corporations Law: Case Study Analysis

Running head: CORPORATIONS LAW
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1
CORPORATIONS LAW
Question 1 (MING ):
Issues:
The issues to be discussed in this assignment are as follows:
 Whether the forty customers who produced the advertisement before the notice goes up
will be able to enforce any legal agreement against Ming.
 Whether the ten customers without any advertisement will be able to enforce any
agreement against Ming.
 Whether Ming can argue since the amount 10 dollars is not sufficient for a promise that
will normally charge 60 $ for a haircut, there lies no legal obligation on the business.
 Whether Ming’s belief that since he had withdrawn the offer, he did not have any
obligation to give cut price haircuts is correct.
Relevant Law:
Contract means a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties who are
obliged to follow the terms and conditions laid down in the agreement. A valid contract is
created when some essential conditions are present. It must be based on an agreement which is
formed of offer given by one of the parties and acceptance of the offer made by the other party as
seen in R v Clarke [1927] HCA 47, (1927) 40 CLR 227, High Court. It must be entered by
persons who are not legally prohibited to enter the contract like minors, drunken, mentally
challenged people as observed in Westmelton (Vic) Pty Ltd v Archer and Schulman [1980]
VicRp 16, [1982] VR 305. Every contract must be supported by a suitable consideration in the
form of some act, service or monetary benefits exchanged between the parties as seen in

2
CORPORATIONS LAW
Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1954] HCA 20, (1954) 92 CLR
424, High Court. The parties to the contract must have free consent to the creation of the contract
and its terms and conditions. The parties must have the intention to abide by the contract as
observed in Helmos Enterprises Pty Ltd v Jaylor Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 235. All these
elements when satisfied, a valid contract is created.
Publicly circulated or communicated advertisements are not to be regarded as the offer to
initiate a contract. It generally refers to an invitation to offer or treat as it is made to any specific
party to enter in to contract instead it is made to public inviting to them to make negotiations to
initiate the contract. It was seen in the case of Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204. but
when the advertisement provides some sort of reward after the fulfilling of any specific
condition, the person who is able to fulfill the condition will have a right of claiming the reward,
provided the condition must not be vague else the claim will not be available. It was observed in
the case of Gunthing v Lynn (1831) 2 B7 Ad 232.
However, an advertisement can be treated as an offer made to a unilateral contract. In this
type of contract, offeror gives an offer that on fulfilling certain condition by the offeree, the latter
will be eligible for a reward to be give by the former. Communication of the acceptance by the
offeree is not needed to validate the contract, main criterion is the fulfilling the contract. It was
observed in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 where
the Court of Appeal specifically decided that an advertisement having certain and non vague
terms to give a reward constitutes of a unilateral offer that can be accepted by any individual by
fulfilling the terms. In these cases, acceptance in express manner is not necessary to form the
contract, fulfilling the condition is needed to form the contract resulting the contract to be
binding on the parties. In the case of R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227, it was held that a person