A Legal Analysis Under Contract Law in England and Wales

Introduction

A contract refers to an agreement that is legally enforceable which is made between parties. On the other hand, an offer is an expression of willingness to form a contract as per certain terms, which are aimed at becoming binding once they are accepted by the offeree. (Peel, 2011, Para. 2–002) defines contract law as a body of legislation concerned with making as well as enforcing agreements. This paper outlines a plan to advise Malakai and Anezka based on England and Wales’ Contract law. This introduction is much too general for this problem and also wastes words by stating material which is obvious. It would not gain marks at this level.

Formation of Contract

To start with, Malakai is not entitled to benefit from this contract/offer. To develop a legal contract between parties, there should be an agreement(s). You must discuss adverts and the cases indicating that they are normally invitations to treat. Cases such as Partridge v Crittenden are the authority for this. You then need to explain that the exception to this is for unilateral contracts, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball, indicating why this particular problem is a unilateral contract. This means there must be an offer and acceptance. A valid acceptance of an offer creates a contract. However, if the acceptance is not conforming exactly to the terms of the offer, such as the offeree introducing a new term, there will be no valid acceptance and no legally binding contract. This is a unilateral contract and the legal requirements for this are very specific – your general material above does not cover this and is therefore not relevant to these specific facts. The first term for this offer is to buy 8 Charlie Chocolate Wonder Bars and Post the 8 Chocolate Bar wrappers to Charlie’s Chocolates Ltd and provide the offeree’s name and address to the company. The second action will be receiving a free book of clues that will assist in locating the Charlie Chocolate Badges. Therefore, the fact that Malakai retrieves a discarded copy of the book of clues means he did not fulfil the terms of the offer. Therefore, he did not legally accept the offer. McKendrick (2013, p. 26 Need more precise reference), argues that for a contract to be created it’s do not abbreviate this important to accept an offer. This means that the offeree should agree to the proposed terms of the offeror as per written, oral or by conduct. Therefore, Malakai is not legally bound, therefore, does not deserve the offer, compensation, etc., from the offeror, as per Financings Ltd v Stimson [1962] 3 All ER 386, which deals with conditional offers and the need to fulfil the requirements before it is capable of being accepted. This was a bilateral contract, so different legal criteria are applied.

On the other hand, Anezka is legally bound to receive the offer. First, as per (McKendrick, 2013, p. 26), Anezka fulfilled the terms of the offer on 4th October 2019 therefore legally bound by the contract. Moreover, in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327 (at p. 332–3), Lord Denning argue that to validate an acceptance, communication must be made to the offeror. Acceptance is different in unilateral contracts. The essence of a unilateral contract is that the offerors offer is accepted by the offeree through the act of performance. The underlying issue is whether it has to be full or partial performance. There are specific cases on this which will be dealt with under revocation below. Anezka sends the 8 wrappers to Charlie’s Chocolate Ltd on 4th October 2019 which is a communication that she was involved in the contract, therefore, making her contract valid. Additionally, to validate this claim, Tinn v Hoffman (1873) 29 LT 271 stipulates that, the offeror can propose that a specific way of communication is utilized. In this case “Posting to Charlie’s Chocolates Ltd the 8 Chocolate Bar wrappers and providing offeree name and address” was the suggested method of communication, which she did on 4th October 2019. Moreover, acceptance by post as per Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681, which states that communication is made once a post is sent by the offeree. This does not depend on whether the post is received by the receiver (offeror) or not. This confirms that Anezka is legally bound to the contract.

Offer may be terminated at any period so long as it is not accepted This goes back to the nature of acceptance in unilateral contracts as indicated below. since before then no legal obligations are bound to the contract. This as per Routledge v Grant (1828) 3 Car & P 267, applies when the offer has not been accepted by the offeree. Anezka, accepting the offer on 4 October 2019, means that Charlie’s Chocolates Ltd.’s termination of the contract on 15 November 2019 was an illegal termination of the contract. In the case of Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co (1880) 5 CPD 344, it is clear that a termination of a contract is effective only after it has been communicated to another party. Therefore, since Charlie’s Chocolates Ltd failed to contact Anezka to inform her off the intention to terminate the offer, the termination was invalid. This is also affirmed by Furmston (2017 p. 66, 78–80).

From the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) 2015 which protected consumers, Fletcher (2003), on the guarantee of contracts, the provided evidence, and the location of one of the Charlie Chocolate Badges on 17 November 2019 by Anezka, Charlie’s Chocolates Ltd, is by law supposed to award Anezka £25,000 in cash or pay her damages due to anticipated breach of contract. The CRA would be very difficult to apply here since it essentially applies to bilateral contracts where there is an obvious exchange of goods and services for defined amounts of money and only on standard terms and conditions p259 Furmston 17th edition, which this contract does not appear to be.

In contrast, Routledge v Grant (1828) 3 Car & P 267 illustrate that offer can be revoked if the offeror wishes to terminate the offer before its set time. On 15 November 2019, Charlie’s Chocolate Ltd announced that the prize has been withdrawn though all prominent national newspapers. This means that Anezka’s location of one of the Charlie Chocolate Badges on 17 November 2019 was beyond the contract set time therefore not bound for the price. Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co (1880) 5 CPD 344 argues that a revocation is effective once it has been communicated to an offeree. On 15 November 2019 Charlie’s Chocolates Ltd communicated the termination of the contract via prominent notice in all the national newspapers. Therefore, Anezka’s search beyond this date could be termed as ignorance. Moreover, revocation is valid if the offeree has heard about the revocation from a third party (Furmston, 2017). Anezka was informed by a passer-by about Charlie’s Chocolates Ltd termination of contract therefore; this can prove that she may not benefit from suing Charlie’s Chocolates Ltd. No, third party information can be valid, as in Dickinson v Dodds. You also have to consider the relevance of her starting performance of the requirements for the unilateral contract and in these circumstances at what point the contract can be revoked. In the case of Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co Ltd v Montefiore (1866) LR 1 Ex 109, it is clear that an offer without a specified time cannot be valid after the period has ended. The offer elapsed on 15 November 2019.

Revocation

There are particular requirements for revocation (or lack of it} in unilateral contracts and you need to refer to these in detail. There are two specific cases which are introduced at p 79 Furmston 2017 and how it is communicated in unilateral contracts. Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper [1941] AC 108 and Errington v Errington v Woods [1952] 1KB 290. There is a dilemma relating to an implied undertaking not to revoke an offer once performance has begun and you need to discuss this in relation to Anzeka. Two further cases are on p80 of Furmston Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1978] Ch 231 and Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2007] WECA Civ 969

Conclusion

As shown by evidence, Malakai is not completely entitled to benefit from the contract while Anezka can benefit from suing Charlie’s Chocolates Ltd for over word limit from here damages, though due to time and communication issue, her case may fail to generate any financial benefit.

References

Books

• Furmston, M. (2017) Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston’s Law of Contract, 17th edn, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• McKendrick, E. (2013) Contract Law, 10th edn, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
• Peel, E. (2011) Treitel on the Law of Contract, 13th edn, London, Sweet & Maxwell.

Articles

• Fletcher, R. (2003) ‘To guarantee or not to guarantee: that is the question?’ Business Law Review, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 118–20.

Cases

• Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681
• Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co (1880) 5 CPD 344
• Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327
• Financings Ltd v Stimson [1962] 3 All ER 386
• Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co Ltd v Montefiore (1866) LR 1 Ex 109
• Routledge v Grant (1828) 3 C & P 267
• Tinn v Hoffman (1873) 29 LT 271

Legislation

• Consumer Rights Act 2015, Chapter 15.