The Complexity of Contract Law in the Yumy Chocolate Case
1051 Words5 Pages
The scenario I have been given highlights the main complexity of contract law. It touches on issues such as unilateral contracts, revocation as well as advertisement. I will be advising Mick (claimant) answering: Whether Yummy chocolate is liable to give a year supply of chocolate as advertised?
Firstly we look at the advert which was placed on 3rd March in “every newspaper” in order to promote their new product. It is an established principle that advertisements are invitation to treat rather than offer, Partridge v Crittenden (1988) . However, in the same case Parker L J expanded on the point that if the ‘seller is the manufacturer’, then the rule does not apply. This is because, the manufacturer could potentially make an unlimited…show more content… The advert the defended placed, had a reward like is Carlill, so if Mick performs the act, he is entitled to the reward until the act has been completely performed.
On the other hand, the defendant did place an advert revoking the offer before the claimant could perform the act, Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) . The general rule of revocation is that an offeror can revoke the contract before complete performance on the requested act even when the offeree have gone to attempt and expense in attempting performance, Luxor v Cooper (1981) . The claimant had not performed before the offer was revoked and therefore there is no contract between the defendant and the claimant, Pickford Ltd v Calestica Ltd (2003) . The principle is implemented in America through Shuey v United States (1853) which highlighted, that if the offeree had not begun ‘part performance’ before the offer was revoked then there offer is not valid . This case has not got any relevant in our English system but as mere persuasive argument as we can imply practical consideration that it would be appropriate to follow the principle.
However in English law in the case of unilateral contract, it is not possible to revoke the offer once the offeree has started to perform the act, Errington v Errington & Woods (1952) . The principle from Errington v Errington & Woods was also acknowledged by the Court of Appeal obiter in the following