ï»¿1a. The issue is to determine if the essentials of a contract have contributed to a binding contract between Leila and Julie.
In order to enforce a contract, four elements must be present and they are offer, acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations.
According to Preston Corporation Sdn Bhd v Edward Leong (1982), an offer was defined as: â€œAn offer is an intimation of willingness by an offeror to enter into a legally binding contract. In terms either â€¦ to be binding on the offeror as soon as it has been accepted by the offeree.â€ An offer made to a large group of persons or the world at large can be claimed by the person who satisfy the requirements of the offer. This principle is supported in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893).
Acceptance has a few principles to abide when it is being made while the offer is still in force and that is when an agreement comes into ...view middle of the document...
An acceptance must be communicated, meaning it must be received by the offeror in whichever way the offeror specifies the mode of communication of acceptance to be. Any other form of acceptance would render the acceptance invalid as supported by Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp. (1955).
However, there are three exceptions whereby acceptance need not be communicated to or received by the offeror. There are waiver of communication, silence and The Postal Rule. In reference to the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) case, an acceptance can be made if the offer was made to a large group of persons or in this case, the world at large.
For the case between Leila and Julie, there are both offer and acceptance present for a binding contract to be enforced between them.
By placing an advertisement in the local newspaper, Leila had made an offer to the world at large, with reference to the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893), and that anyone who found her gold chain and locket which in this case, Julie, would be able to claim the reward. Leilaâ€™s argument whereby Julie should have telephoned first is invalid because there was no required form of acceptance mentioned in the advertisement made and as such, Julie need not telephone Leila prior to the claiming of the reward. This is further supported by the wavier of communication as shown in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893).
In conclusion, there is a binding contract between Leila and Julie and Julie would be able to claim her reward from Leila for finding the gold locket and chain.
1b. Yes, my answer would be different if Julie had not read the advertisement and was told about the reward by April after she had found and returned the locket and chain. This is because Julie willing returned the locket and chain and not because of the promise of a reward. Thus, if she were to go and claim the reward after April, it would be deemed as past consideration and that past consideration is not a valid consideration. With it being an invalid consideration, the elements of a contract would not be met. This is further supported in the case of Roscoria v Thomas (1842).