Problem Analysis Contract Law

An conjure must be firm and establish clear intent, whereas an throwance must accept the term of the pr advise un ablely. It should be noted that in the usual baptistry, communication of acceptance and regard argon also essential to constitute a valid acceptance. If all elements atomic number 18 found to exist, the contr consummation will be complete, and Lain will be curb to fulfill his bode. Offer The first issue to address is whether an offer exists. Lain would presumably argue that his statement was merely a puff and lacked intention to be acted upon as he announced it impulsively under the influence of alcohol, and the offer does not give him whatever benefit.This is, however, a weak argument. The general principle is that the intention of the parties should be assessed objectively, as in Smith v Hughes (1871) cleric 6 CB 597 where Blackburn stated that the promises conduct should be considered in a modality that appears to a reasonable patch. The phrase would pay El 0,000 exhibits both consequence and intention, because it has stated the exact amount of reward and the wordings shows immediate readiness to be bound. His claim is particularly convincing given his wealth. A reasonable man would at that placefore believe that Lain did intend to pay the reward if the stated characterise was fulfilled.Similar to Williams v Cowardice (1833) 5 Car & P 566, there is solitary(prenominal) a promise made by mavin party. Lanais statement appears to signify a unilateral offer that would be converted into a stick contract once the required act has been performed. This would be further discussed in the follo bring ing. Acceptance In unilateral contracts, performance of the stipulated act constitutes the acceptance of offer (Cargill v carbonic smoke gall co. 1893 1 CB 256 (CA)). Both factions have got performed the act of intersection point the finish line ahead of Lanais yacht.However, it is highlighted that the period case differs from Cargill v carboniferous Smoke Ball Co. In that it is arguable whether or not everyone who has completed the performance butt claim the reward. On one hand, it can be said that since Lanais offer does not state any conditions, crossing the finishing line is sufficient in itself. This argument is, however, suggesting that any random yacht that happens to cross the finish line by misadventure is also entitled to the reward, which makes little sense. The court is more likely to accept that only qualified competitors who crossed the knish line ahead of Lanais yacht should be considered.This is indeed supported by the fact that the crowd of Moon liaison joined the competition upon knowing the offer. It shows that the offered also understands that being a qualified competitor is a prerequisite. By entering the race, both crews have concord to the Race Rules and therefore, they should be bound by such rules. In Clarke v Dungaree 1 897 AC 59, the court stated that when the party understands th at the race is to be run under a particular set of regulations, and that he intentionally enter for the race upon those terms, he is bound by such rules.Whilst the crew of toll Raider, being a qualified competitor, had fulfilled the conditions of Lanais offer, since the French crew was not officially recognized by the race officials due to a breach of the Race Rules, it can hardly be said that the last mentioned has validly accepted Lanais offer. Communication of acceptance Whilst communication of acceptance is need in the usual case, in unilateral contract, the offer showed by his lyric poem and from the nature of the contract that he waived the need to communicate (Cargill v Carbonic Smoke Ball Co. ).Whether Lain received notice of the performance is irrelevant to the press at hand. Consideration The agreement has to be supported by regard in a legally enforceable contract. To determine if there is consideration, it brings up the palisade of whether reliance is essential. Lord Dunedin, in Dunlop Pneumatic Tree Co. Ltd v Selfridges & Co. Ltd 191 5 AC 847, 855 defined consideration as an act or favor of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the different is brought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable.Following his definition, obviously, both crews act Of crossing the finish line, in return for the reward, is treated as good consideration. The practise would be less certain if reliance is required. In the book The integrity of Contract, Triple asserts that an act or forbearance would not be consideration where the promises would have accomplished the act or forbearance anyway. This expression was supported by R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLC 227, where the court held that the claimant could not recover the reward because his concern was not the reward when he gave the information.In other words, the claimant had not act in reliance upon the offer. It is a matter of debate if this prevailing view is in fac t erroneous, as argued by capital of Minnesota Mitchell and John Philips in Is reliance essential? , but this is not the current concern. Assuming that this general view is still correct, the French crews acceptance was clearly motivated by the offer as they did not intend to recruit in the race until Lain s announcement. But in the case of Bell Raider, there is insufficient information to tell if their crew did act in reliance to the offer.There may be three different situations depends on the facts. Firstly, if the situation is identical to that of the French crew, they act in reliance to the offer for the same reason. Secondly, if evidence shows that Bell Raider will join and win the pock even without Lanais offer, their performance cannot be regarded as consideration as there is no reliance. Thirdly, if Bell Raider will join the match but not necessarily reach the destination ahead of Lanais yacht, it can still be argued that the reward motivated the crew to outperform thems elves and thus, there is reliance.