Case Study: Offer and Acceptance in Australian Contract Law

This case study examines whether a contract was formed between Bill, John, and Tuan based on the principles of offer and acceptance in Australian Contract Law. The analysis applies relevant legal rules, including the concept of offers to the world at large as illustrated in Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., to determine if Bill is liable to pay the reward for the safe return of his lost dog. The conclusion is that Bill is indeed liable because the actions of John and Tuan constitute a valid acceptance of the offer, which was made without any disclaimers regarding seriousness.

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

1CORPORATIONS AND BUSINESS LAW
Issue
Whether Bill is liable to pay the reward to John and Tuan.
Rule
Under Australian Contract Law, the term contract implies an agreement entered into
between two or more parties depending on an offer by one party and the acceptance of that
offer by the other.
Offer implies the willingness of a person to enter into a contract with another person
having an intention to create legal relations. The same can be illustrated with case of
Australian Woollen Mills v The Commonwealth1.
An acceptance of an offer is effected when the person accepting the offer agrees to the
terms provided in the offer. The same can be illustrated with the case of Hyde v. Wrench2.
Offers to the world at large implies an offer which is not intended to be made to a specific
person or persons. It is directed to any person who comes across the offer and responds to it.
In these kinds of offer responding to the offer implies acceptance and no express acceptance
needs to be present. The same can be illustrated with the case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke
Ball Co3.
Application
In this present case, the displaying of an offer to pay $200 for the safe return of a lost dog
amounts to an offer to world at large, which can be accepted by responding to the same and
no express acceptance will be required. John and Tuan came across that notice and found the
dog and tracked down the owner, Bill to return the dog. In this case, the offer being an offer
1 Australian Woollen Mills v The Commonwealth [1954] 92 CLR 424
2 Hyde v Wrench [1840] 49 ER 132
3 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256

2CORPORATIONS AND BUSINESS LAW
made to the world at large, the responding of John and Tuan is regarded a proper acceptance.
Moreover, the offer was made without any mention about the person making the offer not
being serious.
Conclusion
Bill is liable to pay the reward to John and Tuan.

3CORPORATIONS AND BUSINESS LAW
References
Australian Woollen Mills v The Commonwealth [1954] 92 CLR 424
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256
Hyde v Wrench [1840] 49 ER 132