Walk to London Problem - Advice for Arthur

The rst question to be considered is whether Arthurs advertisement in the Herald

newspaper constitutes an offer or simply an invitation to treat. Only once this is established can the potential contracts between the other claimants be analysed.

The general rule with advertisements is that it is an invitation to negotiate and not an

offer. This rule comes from cases such as Partridge v. Crittenden 1 where it was decided that an advertisement depicting wild birds for sale was simply an invitation to negotiate and not an offer. This was an important decision for the defendant because the selling of such birds would breach the Protection of Birds Act 1954 and therefore be a criminal offence. However, Partridge is not entirely synonymous with Arthurs case. It is recognised since Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company2 that where a unilateral contract is of question, an advertisement may be determined as an offer. ! It is likely the court would treat the advertisement in Arthurs case as an offer rather than

an invitation to treat. This is due to the fact it sets the framework for a unilateral contract, and is therefore homogenous with the case of Carlill. As expressed by Bowen LJ in Carlill, ...it is an offer made to all the world; and why should not an offer be made to all the world which is to ripen into a contract with anybody who comes forward and performs the condition?. Although not part of the ratio of the case, this Obiter Dictum demonstrates the plausibility that a court will regard the advertisement by Arthur as an offer - not an invitation to negotiate.

The rst person to be considered should be Benson. Benson claimed to be entitled to 1

a mile for every mile he had covered. There is no contract with Benson for a variety of reasons.

Partridge v. Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256, Court of Appeal
1

Formative Assessment 2011!

First, there is no express acceptance of the offer (although this is arguably not necessary

in this instance as will be discussed later). Second, because Benson had already completed some of his journey before deciding to claim sponsorship, the consideration is past, which is hardly ever regarded as good consideration enforceable in Law. This is demonstrated in the case of Re McArdle3. In this case, the siblings of a daughter spent money redecorating her deceased Fathers house. The siblings made a promise to reimburse her after she had redecorated. It was ruled the money could not be reclaimed as it was promised after the work was done and therefore there was no consideration. Although it has been suggested in Obiter Dictum in cases such as Pao On v. Lau Yiu 4 and through decisions in cases like Lamleigh v Braithwait5 that past consideration is valid where there is an implied understanding the act was to be remunerated6, this does not apply in Bensons case as, in accordance with Lord Scarmans statement, the act had not been promised in advance. ! Moreover, it has been shown in the Australian case of R v Clarke7 that the person

performing the act requested by the offeror must show they did it as a direct result of the offer. Issacs ACJ in Clarke analogised this rule stating that an offer of 100 to any person who should swim a hundred yards in the harbour on the rst day of the year...would not in my opinion be satised by a person who was...thrown overboard on that date and swam the distance to simply save his life. Although not a binding English legal case, it does illustrate the necessity for express intention as a result of an offer in a very similar legal system. This is entirely synonymous with the case in hand where Benson is not walking as a result of the offer, but was already walking in order to improve his tness. This is the last of a string of reasons showing Bensons contract to be void and therefore Arthur should ght any claim. Bensons claim to 1 a

Re MacArdle [1951] Ch. 669 Pao On v. Lau Yiu [1979] 3 All E.R. 65 at p.74 Lampleigh v. Braithwait [1615], Hob. 105 Lord Scarman in Pao On v. Lau Yiu (See footnote 4) R v Clarke [1927] 40 CLR 227
2

Formative Assessment 2011!

mile is irrelevant considering the lack of binding contract and therefore it needs no further scrutiny.

Cathy seems to have satised all the necessary elements of a contract. She has seen an

offer, she has then clearly communicated acceptance via email thus creating a contract before setting off to London to full her side of the consideration. Evanss situation is similar but without the acceptance component. However, this may be deemed not necessary in unilateral contracts like this one as established in Carlill. Evanss acceptance is through conduct, and as long as she can prove she set out before the revocation advertisement, then that acceptance is valid. The crux in Cathy and Evanss case is whether an offer can be withdrawn when the offeree has begun the task but before completion - the so called Walk to York dilemma. There is no issue with the method of revocation since Arthur communicated revocation through the same channel as the offer Shuey v. United States8 ), the issue lies within the timing. ! The case of Errington v. Errington9, a case concerning a mortgage and reclamation of a

house, is sometimes cited as the authority for the proposition that offers cannot be revoked once performance is underway. Denning LJ is quoted as saying ...it could not be revoked by him once the couple entered on performance of the act. However, it was only Denning who made such a statement and therefore this cannot be relied on too heavily. ! However, in the more recent case of Daulia Ltd v. Four Millbank Nominees Ltd 10 these

views expressed by Denning LJ were afrmed by Goff LJ who said, in the case of unilateral contracts, once the offeree has inaugurated performance then it is too late for the offeree to revoke his offer. Additionally, the principle behind Contract Law is to protect each party from making a valid agreement only to then lose out as a result of one side not complying with that agreement. This jurisprudence is likely to be taken partly into account by the court.
8

Shuey v. United States 92 US 73 [1875] Errington v. Errington [1952] 1 K.B. 290 Daulia Ltd v. Four Millbank Nominees Ltd (1978) 2 All E.R. 557
3

10

Formative Assessment 2011!

With this in mind, combined with the above case authorities, I suggest that it would be

difcult and likely unsuccessful to ght any claims from Evans and Cathy and therefore Arthur should submit to them. However, it should be stressed that any money given as sponsorship should go to the charity as set out in the advertisement and not to the individual. Claims from Benson should be rejected due to the distinct lack of contract.

Word Count: 998 !

Formative Assessment 2011!