law
Bachelor of Commerce Bridging
Kaplan Higher Education Academy – Murdoch University
Name: Florence Low Poh Geok
Program / Intake: BCom27
Module: Commercial Law
Lecturer: Daniel Theyagu
Student ID: 32736209
Program Manager: Hazel Ong / Ang Kang Ling
Total Words Count: 1998
Question 1A
The legal point in question is whether Leila advertisement constitutes a binding contract and that she go can back on her promise of paying the reward $50 to Julie for returning the gold chain and locket to her.
Relevant principle of law relating to this issue is that an advertisement made to the world at large is considered as a unilateral offer and not an invitation to treat. The reason for this rule is that making an advertisement to the world at large, any person who follows the instructions has accepted the offer without further bargaining. For instance, selling a grand piano for $10,000 if any person comes to the offeror on the 1st Sunday morning of the month.
In the case of Gunthing v Lynn (1831) 2B & AD 232, Lynn offered to buy a horse from Guthing under a condition that if the horse brings him luck, Guthing will pay £5 to Lynn. Similar to the case of Leila advertisement does not state any notice of accepting the offer by calling first.
The above principle was clearly stated in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) 1 QB 256, an advertisement was also made to the world at large for paying anyone who brought the product and still got flu. This would mean that the offer is as promise for the performance of an act made to the whole world for this case is a binding contract.
The principle in the case of was further endorse in K Murugesu v Nadarajah [1980] 2 MLJ 82, one party makes a promise in return for the performance of an act. The case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (IBID) is an example of executed consideration where the defendants advertised the promise of a reward for persons to use their smoke balls in a certain manner.
Applying the
Kaplan Higher Education Academy – Murdoch University
Name: Florence Low Poh Geok
Program / Intake: BCom27
Module: Commercial Law
Lecturer: Daniel Theyagu
Student ID: 32736209
Program Manager: Hazel Ong / Ang Kang Ling
Total Words Count: 1998
Question 1A
The legal point in question is whether Leila advertisement constitutes a binding contract and that she go can back on her promise of paying the reward $50 to Julie for returning the gold chain and locket to her.
Relevant principle of law relating to this issue is that an advertisement made to the world at large is considered as a unilateral offer and not an invitation to treat. The reason for this rule is that making an advertisement to the world at large, any person who follows the instructions has accepted the offer without further bargaining. For instance, selling a grand piano for $10,000 if any person comes to the offeror on the 1st Sunday morning of the month.
In the case of Gunthing v Lynn (1831) 2B & AD 232, Lynn offered to buy a horse from Guthing under a condition that if the horse brings him luck, Guthing will pay £5 to Lynn. Similar to the case of Leila advertisement does not state any notice of accepting the offer by calling first.
The above principle was clearly stated in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) 1 QB 256, an advertisement was also made to the world at large for paying anyone who brought the product and still got flu. This would mean that the offer is as promise for the performance of an act made to the whole world for this case is a binding contract.
The principle in the case of was further endorse in K Murugesu v Nadarajah [1980] 2 MLJ 82, one party makes a promise in return for the performance of an act. The case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (IBID) is an example of executed consideration where the defendants advertised the promise of a reward for persons to use their smoke balls in a certain manner.
Applying the