Adverts (cont.): This doesn't mean ALL newspaper adverts will be treated as ITT's. Provided the wording is clear, and there aren't any problems of limited supply, there should be no reason why it shouldn't amount to an Offer. This can be seen illustrated in the American case of "Leifkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores", where the defendants published an advert in a newspaper, stating that on 'Saturday 9am sharp, three brand new fur coats" for a $1 (first come, first served). The stores however, refused to sell the fur coat to the plaintiff on the basis he wasn't female. HELD: The advert amounted to an Offer, which the plaintiff accepted and ... he was entitled to the coat. In England, the most famous case to illustrate an Advert being an Offer is in the case of "Carlill v TCSBC". In this case, there was a detailed advert regarding the use of a smoke ball, which could cure anyone who caught influenze. The advert indicated regarding the use of a smoke ball and the advert indicated a course of action. It stated if anyone caught the flu, they'd be able to claim for the £100 compensation. The advert contained a course of action which Mrs Carlill performed. The advert itself stated that '£1000 had been deposited in the Alliance Bank'.
HELD: The courts highlighted the fact that the smoke ball company had deposited '£1000' in the bank, was an intention to create a binding obligation. Therefore, Mrs Carlill was able to claim for her £100 and was successful in her claim and the advert was an Offer and not an ITT, due to the level of detail.
AO2: The case represents the existence capable of being accepted via performance. There is no need to communicate. This is an example of a unilateral offer i.e. 'an offer made to the world'. The distinction between unilateral and bilateral contracts is important in relation to the areas of 'acceptance' and 'consideration'.
Comments
No comments have yet been made