Understanding Unilateral Contracts in Business Law

BUSINESS LAW 1
Author’s name
Class
Tutor
City/state
Date

BUSINESS LAW 2
Issues
The issue is whether a contact exists between SuperNatural and Gaia. We also need to determine
first whether there is offer and acceptance to determine whether a contract exists.
Law
For a valid contract to exist, parties must reach an agreement after one gives an offer and the
other party accepts the offer without a counter-offer. For contract to exist, there has to be a
meeting of the minds, and this is construed depending on the circumstances. Offer shows the
willingness to enter into a contact, and if accepted, a valid contract will exist. An offer is like a
promise to do something. Offers can be made to particular people and sometimes to the world as
seen in AGC Limited v Mchhirter. Acceptance involves the offeree, agreeing to what has been
offered. This can be done through conduct, a valid statement or when a person whom the offer is
being directed to agree to the offer. It is usually sufficient when an offeree acts in a particular
way based on the offer. Acceptance does not require any particular conduct. The capacity of the
parties entering into a contract also matters. Capacity includes legal age, sound mindedness and
ability to understand the contractual terms (Bix, 2012, pg. 20).
In general, courts do not consider advertisements as offers. They are instead invitations to begin
the process of negotiations. Most public advertisements are invitations to treat and do not
constitute offers. In Patridge v Crittenden (1968); in this case, the defendant was selling
Bramblefinch hens, wild hens. He advertised the burds, the amount and the number, it was
unlawful to sell such wild birds, and he was sued. In court, the issue was whether an
advertisement was an invitation to treat- (which will make him blameless for the offense), or an

BUSINESS LAW 3
offer which will (make him guilty). The court held that the defendant was not guilty because an
advertisement is an invitation to treat and not an offer. Such advertisements have an exception in
the cases of rewards because rewards require certain requirements to be fulfilled so that a person
is entitled to the reward. In Giting v Lynn (1831) when an offer is too vague, it cannot be
considered a valid offer. In this case, there was an offer that after purchasing a horse there was a
promise to pay "$5 more if the horse was lucky". The court considered this offer to be too vague
(Smits, 2017 pg 45).
Carlill Vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball case shows a unilateral offer scenario. In this case, an
advertisement was placed stating that anyone who used the smoke ball as per the directions and
still contracted influenza, was entitled to $100 reward. In this case, the instructions required a
person to use the smoke balls for three weeks and three times every day. Mrs. Carlill purchased
the smoke balls, and after following the instructions, she still contracted influenza. She sought to
claim the $100 reward. In this case, issues as on the communication of Carlill's acceptance were
raised. The court decided that although there was an offer to the world at large, Carlill took the
necessary steps to fulfill the requirements hence a valid contract existed. Although she did not
communicate about her acceptance, she fulfilled the terms as required. This shows how such
unilateral offers can waiver the need for communication from parties (Blum, 2017 pg.57).
Application
The case of Guia and SuperNatural is a classical case of a unilateral contract such as the one of
Carliill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball case. In this case, an advertisement is placed with instructions
to use, and it guarantees that the user will have immunity to "NeuroToxiaflu." It further states
that if a person of the prescribed age (over 65), and follows the given instructions complies and