Business and Corporation Law: Unilateral Offers and Contract Analysis

This assignment analyzes the legal issues surrounding a promotional competition run by SOO Burgers, focusing on unilateral offers. The 'Fair Dinkum Deal' offered customers a chance to win a car by collecting tokens and redeeming a scratch ticket. The assignment examines the legal requirements for a unilateral offer, the rules of revocation, and the communication procedures involved. Two scenarios are considered: one where a customer followed the rules and another where a customer collected tokens from the trash. The analysis applies contract law principles, including offer, acceptance, and the 'Mirror Image' rule. The conclusion determines SOO Burgers' liability in each scenario, based on whether the actions of the customers constituted valid acceptance of the offer. The document also includes a discussion of relevant case law, such as Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd and Byrne v Van Tienhoven, to support the arguments presented.

Unilateral Offers 1
BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
by Student’s Name
Code + Course Name
Professor’s Name
University Name
City, State
25TH SEPTEMBER 2019

Unilateral Offers 2
MATERIAL FACTS (MICHAEL)
SOO Burgers ran a competition Australia wide called ‘the fair Dinkum deal.' The customer
was supposed to buy 50 double-decker burgers with each containing a token. Fifty of these
tokens would allow the buyer to redeem a golden scratch ticket.
If the golden scratch reveals a ‘golden car’, the ticket was to be presented to the SOO Burgers
Headquarters and the participant to win a new MazdaCX9
Michael (Mickey) bought 50 double-decker burgers; with the 50 tokens, he redeemed a
golden scratch ticket which revealed a golden car.
Before collection of his ticket, he gets information that the promotion has been called off.
LEGAL ISSUES
What kind of offer is this, and what are the requirements are essential?
When can the offeror revoke withdraw an offer?
What is the communication procedure when an offeror is withdrawing an offer?
APPLICATION OF LAW
Under the general principles of the law of contract, when there is an advertisement
that requires a course of action in return for which the advertiser makes a promise to give
something, this type of offer is referred to as a unilateral offer. Lord Bowen LJ as decided in
the case of Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd [1893] 1 QB 256 stated that in the
case of unilateral offers performance and acceptance were the same thing. This would then
mean that the offeree does not need to accept the offer rather perform as the two are similar
(Bayern, 2015). In the case of Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256, the
defendants made two main arguments;

Unilateral Offers 3
I. That a contract could not be made with the whole world
II. No contract existed because the company was not given notice of acceptance
The court, in its wisdom, rejected the first argument stating that this was a unilateral contract;
thus, a contract could be made with anyone who came ahead to perform the contract. In the
second argument, the court argued that notification of acceptance was equal to performance
(Eisenberg, 2018).
Revocation of an offer in the contract law is only possible prior to the offeree
accepting the offer. Once an offer has been accepted, the formation of a contract has been
completed, and revocation is thus not possible (Kwan, 2017). This concept is illustrated as
decided in the case of Routledge v Grant (1828) 4 Bing 653, where the defendant had
offered to sell his house. This offer to sell the house was to be in place in the market for six
weeks. Before the six weeks ended, he took the house off the market. The court held that his
actions to take the house off the market were valid as the plaintiff had not agreed to the offer
at the moment when it was being revoked. There is although an exception to this basic rule
whereby if the offeree agrees to pay to keep the offer open, the payment will be considered as
consideration and thus the offeror is bound to keep it open (Yasoobi & Saeidi, 2016).
Concerning communication for revocation of an offer, the general principles of the
law of contract under revocation of offers, provide that disclosure to the offeree on the
cancellation of the offer is mandatory. While the offeror is entitled to withdraw the offer
before it has been accepted, it would be unfair if communication has not been done. The
courts will therefore treat any withdrawal of an offer that has not been communicated as
invalid (Minattur, 2016). This concept is illustrated as decided in Byrne v Van Tienhoven
(1880) 5 CPD 344. The court went ahead to state that communication of withdrawal of an
offer can be made by any reliable party as decided in Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 ChD 463.

Unilateral Offers 4
This third party, although, should be a reliable source of information (Stone & Devenney,
2017).
CONCLUSION
Based on the above arguments, SOO Burgers are liable to perform Michael as in the contract
made between the two.

Unilateral Offers 5
MATERIAL FACTS (BRETT)
SOO Burgers ran a competition Australia wide called ‘the fair Dinkum deal.' The customer
was supposed to buy 50 double-decker burgers with each containing a token. Fifty of these
tokens would allow the buyer to redeem a golden scratch ticket.
If the golden scratch reveals a ‘golden car’, the ticket was to be presented to the SOO Burgers
Headquarters and the participant to win a new MazdaCX9
Brett scavenged in rubbish bins of SOO Burgers and collected 100 tokens. He redeemed two
golden tickets, both of which revealed a golden car.
He went to collect the cars at the Headquarters before getting information of eh cancellation
of the promotion.
LEGAL ISSUE
There are primarily two legal issues that will need to be answered by the courts. The issues
that the court would describe as a performance of this contract. Would it be;
a. Buying burgers to get tokens? or
b. Collecting the tokens from dustbins?
The court will also need to answer whether the collection of tokens from bins is valid
acceptance?
APPLICATION OF LAW
The general principles of contract law under acceptance hold that before the action
even becomes acceptance, it needs to be valid (Fitzpatrick, Symes, Veljanovski & Parker,
2017). The question would then be what makes an acceptance valid? The ‘Mirror Image' rule
in contract law holds that for acceptance to be valid thus accepted, it must at all times

Unilateral Offers 6
correspond precisely and in every detail with the offer made (Cartwright, 2016). All the rules
that had been set by the offeror have to be completed for an offer to have been validly
accepted. If any of the provisions of acceptance have not been followed, then the general
principles of contract law provide that there is no contract that has been formed between the
two and the parties are not bound to the terms of the agreement. This concept is illustrated as
decided in Jones v Daniel [1894] 2 Ch 332 (Chen-Wishart, Loke & Vogenauer, 2018).
CONCLUSION
From the above arguments, it is clear that the acceptance by Brett is not valid as he did not
follow all the rules required when one is accepting of an offer. The SOO Burger therefore not
bound to perform as was in the contract.

Unilateral Offers 7
References
Bayern, S., 2015. Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law: A Needles Concept. Calif.
L. Rev., 103, p.67.
Cartwright, J., 2016. Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the
civil
lawyer. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Chen-Wishart, M., Loke, A. and Vogenauer, S. eds., 2018. Formation and third party
beneficiaries. Oxford University Press.
Eisenberg, M.A., 2018. Foundational Principles of Contract Law. Oxford University Press.
Fitzpatrick J, Symes C, Veljanovski, A & Parker, D – Business and Corporations Law
3rd Ed (2017), LexisNexis
Kwan, M., 2017. Unilateral Renewal Option in Quebec: The Unexplored Legal Method to
Stop Contract Renewal Through Revocation of Offer. Canadian Law Series.
Minattur, J., 2016. 008_The Indian Contract Act: Its Wanderlust and Warmer Climes.
Stone, R. and Devenney, J., 2017. The modern law of contract. Routledge.
Yasoobi, M.A. and Saeidi, A.S., 2016. The Comparative Study of Offer Revocation in Iran’s
Law and International Convention on Sale and Principles of International
Contracts. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies (IJHCS) ISSN
2356-5926, pp.1439-1451.