The Complexity of Contract Law in the Yumy Chocolate Case

1039 Words3 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 amount of chocolate, therefore, the advert the defendant placed, is an offer rather than an invitation to treat.
In addition to, the advert requires people walking from Manchester to Birmingham thus a performance. As a result, this is a unilateral contract, which according to Jill pool contract textbook is ‘a contract where one party binds himself to perform a stated promise upon performance of a stated act by the promise’ . This highlights that anyone who performs the act will be rewarded by the yummy chocolate (defendant) thus a binding contract, Bowerman v Association of British Travel Agents Ltd (1996) . Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) is the most famous example of a unilateral contract. It was established that by Bowen LJ that ‘an offer can be made to the whole world’ and there is no requirement that the offeree communicated an intention to accept, since acceptance is through full performance . Therefore, it was the claimant’s choice to walk from Manchester to Birmingham, and once he sta...

... middle of paper ...

... Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd. [1978] 2 All ER 557 CA
• Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463
• Errington v Errington and Woods [1952] 1 KB 290
• Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper [1941] AC 108
• McGoveny (1914) 27 Harv L Rev 644,659
• Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 All E.R. 421 (Q.B.D.)
• Pickfords Limited v Celestica Limited [2003] EWCA Civ 1741
• Schweppe -v- Harper [2008] EWCA Civ 442
• Shuey v. United States, 92 U.S. 73 (1875)
• Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2007] EWCA Civ 969, [2008] 2 WLR 834

Books

• Elliot C & Quinn F, Contract law (7th, Maxwell, Pearson 2009)
• Pool J, Contract law (11th, Oxford university press, Oxford 2012)
• Treital G, The Law of Contract (10 th Maxwell 1999 )

Websites
• Mike SP, 'what is contract' (isitlawmagazine.com 6th August 2009) accessed 2nd november 2013

Open Document