Question locket and chain. Is Leila allowed to not


legal point in question is whether the advertisement Leila has advertised on
the newspaper has a binding contract with Julie. As written on the
advertisement, Julie will be entitled with a reward of $50 for the return of
locket and chain. Is Leila allowed to not reward Julie?

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now


Relevant principle of law relating to
this issue is that an advertisement made to the world at large is considered as
a unilateral offer and not an invitation to treat (Wormser, 1916). This means that if an
offeror chooses to advertise to the world at large, anyone who fulfil the
requirement of the offeror is entitled to the reward stated without further


principle of law is established in the case of Gunthing v. Lynn (1831) 2 B7 Ad
232. The plaintiff (buyer of horse), promised the seller that if the horse is
lucky they would pay $5 more, or buy another horse. The horse was not in the
state the plaintiff wanted which lead to an argument between both parties as to
whether the buyer needs to pay the $5 mentioned previously. The court held that
the condition to pay $5 more for the horse if it was lucky, is too unclear to
create a binding contract. Similar to this case, Leila’s advertisement did not clearly
mention that there is a necessity to call prior to collecting the reward.


in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) 1 QB 256, Carbolic Smoke
Ball Co states in their advertisement made to the world that anybody who bought
the smoke ball, used it correctly and still got flu will be paid with euro one
hundred. This means that the offer is as promise for the performance of an act
made to the whole world hence, a binding contract. The case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
(IBID) is an example of executed consideration where the defendants advertised
the promise of reward for persons to use their smoke ball in a certain manner
(Lorenzen, 1919).


by putting an advertisement in the newspaper to the world at large is a
unilateral offer; Leila will not know who will take up the offer. Julie who has
read the newspaper and fulfilled the requirement of finding and returning the locket
and chain has accepted the offer this creates a binding contract between both
parties. Therefore, Julie should be rewarded with $50 for the time she has
spent to travel to Leila’s apartment. Although, Leila claims that Julie should
have called beforehand, but this argument will be invalid because it is not clearly
stated in the advertisement.


Leila is able to prove that her advertisement is only an invitation to treat, then
there will be no binding contract; which can be used as a counter claim. An invitation to treat is an
invitation to other parties to make an offer to form a contract, the difference
between an offer and an invitation to treat is important because accepting an
offer is creating a binding contract (Schwartz & Scott, 2003). If
Leila is only inviting Julie to make an offer, then a binding contract is not
created because Julie’s reply will not be the acceptance of an offer. With
that, Leila can choose not to reward Julie.  


since it is a binding contract it is not advisable for Leila to not reward
Julie because Julie can choose to take legal action against Leila if she refuse
to pay Julie her reward of $50. Last but not least, for the same disagreement
to not happen again, if Leila wants people to call before returning her item,
she should be clearer in her advertisement and not change her words after
people accepts her offer.


legal issue in this question is that will it be different if Julie had returned
the locket and chain before she found out about the reward from April. Can
Leila as an offeror sue Julie for wanting to claim the reward.


principle of law for this issue is that Julie will is only eligible for the
reward the moment she returns Leila her locket and chain, anything after that
is considered a past consideration.


above principle has been established in the case of Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3
QB 234. R brought a horse from T for $30, after selling, T promise R that the
horse was sound and free of vice. However, the horse turned out hostile. The
court held that T promise was made after the transaction had already been
concluded and therefore it’s a past consideration which is not a valid consideration.
Julie returned the locket and chain without a reward shows that having no
reward will not affect her decision on returning the items.


a counter argument Tweedle v Atkinson (1861) EWHC QB J57, the father of the couple
agreed that they would each pay a sum of money to the couple since they are
getting married. The father of the bride died before payment. The father of the
son also died so was unable to sue on the agreement. The groom then made a
claim against the executor of the will. The court held that Tweedle could not
enforce the contract between both fathers because he was not in the party and
there is no consideration. Considerations
must move from the promise but need not move to the promisor (Taylor &
Taylor, 2017). The party is only between Leila and April because April
is the one that read the advertisement. Since Julie was not in the party, there
is no consideration at all so, she cannot claim the reward.


it is not advisable for Julie to claim the reward after returning the locket
and chain, because the act has already been done before she know that she will
be rewarded.







legal issue: Adam agreed to buy a 1925 Rolls Royce from Edwin and they entered
into a contract, later Edwin wants to sell it to someone else who is offering a
higher price causing a breach in the contract.


The relevant principle of law
applicable to this issue is that the Roll Royce is a unique product, which is
consider as an equitable remedy by using specific performance and injunction (Ashley,
1906). It’s
an order by the court to one party to do something specific. For example, if S
has spent her life searching for a dog that can clique with her like her
previous dog, and she finally found when P offered her dog for sale. If P backs
out of the agreement, S will not be happy because that particular dog is what S
wants. In this case, the court will order specific performance requiring P to
sell the dog to S.


v Thornton (1805) 10 Ves 159 established the above principle of law, N had
contracted to buy machinery (unavailable elsewhere) from T. T then refused to
sell the machinery; the courts granted specific performance and forced T to


principle of law in the case of Warner Bros v Nelson 1937 1 KB 209, by
contract, the defendant actress Bette Davis, agreed to act exclusively for
Warner Bros for two years. The contract states that she cannot be employed by
other company. However, Bette Davis breach the contract and entered an
agreement to act for another. Warner Bros sought an injunction to prevent her
from doing so. An injunction was granted but it only prevented Bette
Davis from acting for another. No employment of any kind was too harsh and was
not in the injunction. Similar to the case of Adam and Edwin, they entered into
a contract for the purchase of car, subsequently Edwin wanted to sell the car
to an Arabian Sheik who is willing to pay $200,000 more.


If we apply the principle, Adam suffered a loss because Roll Royce is a
vintage car which is a unique product, Adam can appeal for order to force Edwin
to sell the unique car as stated in their contract by using specific
performance. Injunction could be used to remedy Edwin’s breach of contract by
restraining the Arabian Sheik from purchasing. If the Arabian Sheik choose not
to obey to the injunction, he would face criminal or civil penalties and may
have to compensate damages or accept sanctions for failure of following the
court’s order.


For a counter argument; Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1. The plaintiff was a
solicitor who constructed an advertisement titled ‘Law Partnership’. He is
looking for a successor who he would take as a Partner if the individual
purchased the plaintiff’s property. The defendant responded and was informed
the business was worth £300 per year. He then wrote to the solicitor regarding the
amount of business completed in the last three years. The plaintiff showed
documentation showing almost £200 per year and offered the defendant the
opportunity to assess the accounts. The defendant subsequently agreed to
purchase the property but having placed a deposit on the property and taking
possession, he found the business was actually worthless and refused to
complete the remainder of the agreement. The plaintiff appealed for specific
performance. The judge in the first instance found in favor of the plaintiff
and the decision was appealed. Edwin refused to sign the contract because he
heard that an Arabian Sheik is finding the rare car and is willing to pay
$700,000. This caused Edwin to have innocent misrepresentation which lead to
the false statement believing that there was an Arabian Sheik who is willing to
pay $200,000 more.


conclusion, Adam can enforce specific performance against Edwin to force him to
follow the contract. Injunction can also be used on the Arabian Sheik to stop
him from buying the car from Edwin. This allow Adam to buy the car from Edwin at
the original contract price of $500,000.






legal issues: will it still be considered a breach of contract if the motor
vehicle was a late model Mercedes Benz and Edwin refused to go through with the
contract after he heard that there was an Arabian Sheik on the lookout and is
willing to pay $700,000 for the car instead. What are some of the remedies for
the above issue?


The general principle of law applicable
to this issue is that Adam who suffered a loss of a Mercedes Benz due to breach
of contract is unliquidated damages (Talley, 1994).


above principle can be established in the case of Monarch SS CO v Karlshamns
Olijefabriker (1948) AC 196, KO entered a contract in April 1939 with MSC to
transport beans to a specific port. Due to the unseaworthiness of the vessel, there
was a delay and the beans it did not reach the designated port before the
outbreak of World War Two. The British Admiralty prohibited the ship from
continuing, and KO claimed for breach of contract. The owner of the cargo suffered
losses when the ship was redirected to discharge in Scotland. The court held
that this loss was caused and the owner was able to compensate the damages.
Applying the principle of above case, Edwin who refuses to sell the Mercedes
Benz has breach the contract. Hence it leads to Adam encountering a loss; thus,
Adam will be compensated by the money damages.


a counter argument in the case of Hochster v De La Tour (1853) 2 E & B 678,
La Tour agreed to employ Mr. Hochster as a courier and travel with him in
Europe on 1 June 1852. On 11 May 1852, De La Tours wrote to Hochster informing
them that they no longer require his services. On 22 May 1852, Hochster brought
an action of damages for anticipatory breach of contract. De La Tours argued
that he could not bring an action before the date on which the contract was due
to commence. Held: where one party has intention not to follow the contract,
the innocent party do not need to wait until the breach has occurred before suing.
Adam and Edwin had a contract on purchasing the Mercedes Benz, after having
heard that an Arabian Sheik was willing to pay $700,000, Edwin refused to sell
the Mercedes Benz. Therefore, Adam may treat this as an anticipatory breach and
consider the contract as being discharged.


In conclusion, everything will be different if the model of car in the
contract is not a Rolls Royce. Because if the model of the car has changed it
will cause a price different and the degree of uniqueness of the cars. A
different remedy approach would be used because Adam do not need to buy from
specifically from Edwin if it is a Mercedes Benz because supply for a Mercedes Benz is
higher, as compared to a Rolls Royce which is a unique and vintage car. Hence,
Edwin should compensate Adam.


Total word count: 2154