Corporations and Business Law

Running head: CORPORATIONS AND BUSINESS LAW
Corporations and Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CORPORATIONS AND BUSINESS LAW
Part A
Issue
Whether the forty customers producing the advertisement before the notice goes up in the
window be able to enforce any legal agreement.
Whether the customers, who do not have the advertisement with them can participate in
the promotion and enforce any agreement.
Whether Ming Could argue that $10 is insufficient for the promise of what would
normally be a $60 haircut and no legal obligation would be incurred by the business pursuant
to that.
Whether Ming has any legal obligation to provide cut-price haircut after the withdrawal of
the promotion.
Rule
Contract implies an agreement involving two or more persons, which is legally
enforceable. The parties entering into a contract must have the intentions of creating legal
obligations. A valid contract is required to possess the elements of offer, acceptance and
consideration. In order to analyse the validity of a contract, the competency of the parties,
their age, their state of mind, whether their consent has been availed under the influence of
insanity or intoxication needs to be considered. The parties to the contract needs to
understand the terms of the contract and must agree for the contract in the same sense.
Public Advertisements are not considered to be an offer under the contract law. It implies
an invitation to treat. The same can be illustrated with the case of Partridge v Crittenden
(1968). However, in case of advertisement providing for a reward on fulfilment of a specific
term, the person fulfilling term based on the advertisement will incur a right to claim the

2CORPORATIONS AND BUSINESS LAW
reward. However, if the term to be fulfilled is vague the claim will not be available. This can
be illustrated with the case of Gunthing v Lynn (1831).
In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893), the company put an
advertisement announcing a reward to any person who will contract influenza even after
using their smoke balls. It was contended by the court in this case that the offer was made to
world at large contrary to which the company argued that the other party failed to
communicate its acceptance to the company and claims contract to be not valid. The court
held that in case of advertisement made to public at large involving reward on performance of
a specific condition, the person fulfilling the condition would be eligible to avail the reward.
In such cases, the express acceptance of the other party is not required to form the contract,
mere fulfilment of the conditions specified in the contract is required for the contract to be
valid and binding on both the parties.
This is regarded as unilateral contract. In such kinds of contracts, the offeror makes a
promise to pay a reward if the offeree fulfils certain condition. The communication of
acceptance is not required for this kind of contracts to be formed, the mere commission of the
condition will form the contract to be binding upon the parties.
However, it was held in the case of R v Clarke (1927) that a person not aware of the offer
cannot claim the benefits of the same.
In the case of Chappell v Nestle [1960] AC 87, it was held that consideration need not be
adequate, the mere presence of a consideration will be enough.
Application
In the present situation, Ming advertised for a special offer in the local newspaper pursuant
to which fifty people availed the special offer. This brings the situation under the purview of
advertisements made to the world at large. The providing for haircuts at $10 is a