Contract Law - Case Study: Soo Burger and 'The Fair Dinkum Deal'

This case study analyzes a Contract Law scenario involving Soo Burger's promotional competition, 'The Fair Dinkum Deal'. The assignment examines the legal enforceability of the offer and acceptance of the promotional contest. The analysis considers the principles of Australian Contract Law, including offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations. The case involves two individuals, Mickey and Brett, who participated in the contest, and the assignment assesses whether Soo Burger is liable to provide the prize to either or both of them. The assignment references relevant case law, such as Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, to support its conclusions regarding unilateral contracts and breach of contract. The conclusion advises Soo Burger on its liability to each participant based on the application of contract law principles.

CONTRACT LAW

Table of Contents
PART A...........................................................................................................................................3
Option 1.......................................................................................................................................3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

PART A
Option 1
Case Identification
According to this case, Soo Burger which is a chain of hamburger restaurants in Australia and
New Zealand are having low sales due to which it is being decided by the management to increase the
sales through a competition named 'The Fair Dinkum Deal' which was promoted extensively in which
one has to eat 'Double Decker Emu Burger' in which a token will be attached to its wrapper and by
collecting 50 of these token and submitting them to the counter they can get a golden scratch ticket
which reveals a golden car. The golden car ticket had to be submitted to the head office for winning
great prize of brand new Mazda CX-9s.
Mickey, after hearing the offer went there and ordered 50 such burgers. But, after having them,
he passed out of fatigue and had to rush to the hospital, but before going to hospital he redeemed his 50
tokens and collected his golden scratch card. Mickey in the hospital had not heard the news directly of
canceling the offer because of printing error of golden scratch cards which was instead of one winning
ticket, there were five such tickets which was an error by the printing team, but from nurses he got to
know, and when he scratched the ticket, he also found a golden car, but ignoring all the news he rushed
to the head office after getting himself discharged from the hospital and disregarding the notice at the
front office of the head office and showed the ticket to the receptionist.
Brett Vulture a customer searched and collected Wrappers from dustbins. But, Brett collected
100 of them and redeemed at the counter and got 2 golden scratch tickets and when he found two
golden cars. He then rushed to Melbourne, the head office of Soo Burger and there he presented his
tickets to the receptionist who told him to wait outside. And in the meantime, he found that an
employee came out and put the notice regarding the error in printing of the ticket in front of the front
office gate.
Rules
Australian Contract Law deals with legal enforcement of offer which is made with free consent
of both the parties, which forms a legal relationship between the parties is called contract(Smith,
2018).
 As there is no Unilateral contract, Therefore, for legal binding of the contract, an
agreement is required which is made through offer made by one party and acceptance of
that offer by the other party.

 The consent of the parties should be free and not influenced by misrepresentation. And
the communication between the buyer and seller of the contract should be clear and not
ambiguous. For Example: In the case of Edginton Vs Fitmaurice [1885] 29 Ch D459, it
was studied that due to material misrepresentation of facts, the plaintiff got influenced.
 Lawful consideration is required which can be in the form of supply of money by the
buyer and receiving the same by the seller.
 Intentions of both the party should be present for entering into a contract
 The person entering into the contract should have the Capacity to bind by the legal
relation, that is, he should be major and of sound mind(Byrne, 2018). The contract should be clear, certain and binding on both the parties.
Application
The contract was not certain and clear, hence not enforceable as the offer made by the
restaurant and acceptance of the same by Mickey through purchasing 50 burgers next day for getting
the prize through redeeming the token contained in wrapper created legal binding on both the parties.
And also, the condition of lawful consideration, that is, by purchasing the burger was also fulfilled by
him. As Mickey got the scratch card but had to rush to the hospital due to exhaustion, which resulted in
not submitting the ticket to the head office on time, that is before the notice of printing error was made.
As in the case of Dimmock Vs Hallett [1866] 2 Ch D 7, where there was misrepresentation of facts on
the part of defendant, mistakenly.
Brett accepted the offer by collecting the token from the wrapper from dustbins and get them
redeemed. Now, it is found that restaurant has rejected claim of Brett by saying that there was printing
error. As in this case Brett has right to claim against the firm because it was legal documented and
offer by entity that it will provide the car to the winner but when Brett claimed his gift prize, the
restaurant refused for the same in spite of creation of legal contract and the restaurant here was in the
position to fulfill the contract as it was under legal obligation to do so, but it breached the contract
which is not valid in the eyes of law. Therefore, according to the same case as of Redgrave Vs Hurd
(1881) 20 Ch D1, it amounted to unilateral contract & Soo Burger Restaurant is liable to enforce the
contract by providing the gift prize to Brett(Poole, 2016).
As per the case of, Carlill v/s Carbolic Smoke ball Co. where the Company advertised in the
newspaper that whomsoever will take the medicine produced by them for influenza according to the
directions mentioned will not suffer from influenza. Here, Mrs. Carlill by accepting the offer took the

medicine according to the direction and then also got suffered from influenza and claim the reward.
The Company rejected the appeal by saying that it is not liable for the compensation. But, the court
accepted the plea of Mrs. Carlill stating that the contract was a unilateral contract and communication
for acceptance is not required, hence the company is liable to pay the compensation (Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke Ball Co, 1893).
Likewise, in case of Soo Burger restaurant, they are liable to pay the compensation to Brett as
he has fulfilled all the conditions of a unilateral contract.
Conclusion
According to the rules of Australian Contract Law, it is been advised to Soo Burgers that in
case of Mickey, the restaurant is not liable for enforcing the contract and cannot file a suit in an
appropriate court and ask for compensation from the restaurant. On the other hand, Brett is eligible for
enforcement of contract and also the compensation by the restaurant as he fulfilled all the conditions of
a valid contract. Therefore, Soo Burger Restaurant is liable to enforce the contract of providing of gift
prize of Mazda CX-9s in case of Brett(Andrews, 2015).

REFERENCES
Books & Journals
Byrne, S., 2018. Defamation law in Australia [Book Review]. Ethos: Official Publication of the Law
Society of the Australian Capital Territory. (248). p.60.
Smith, J., 2018. Contract law in Australia [Book Review]. Ethos: Official Publication of the Law
Society of the Australian Capital Territory. (248). p.60.
Poole, J., 2016. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press.
Andrews, N., 2015. Contract law. Cambridge University Press.
Online
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 Court of Appeal. 1893. [online] available through:
<http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Carlill-v-Carbolic-Smoke-Ball-Co.php>