QUESTION ONE

Area of Law: Invitation to treat under law of contract.

Principle of Law: In the case under review, the circular by the salon was not to Jenny alone but

to the whole world. Thus anybody could respond to it. The salon could not raise charges against

anyone not coming forth to receive the discount (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball, 1893)1. This

kind of relationship between seller and buyer falls in the category of invitation to treat (Partridge

v Crittenden, 1968)2 open to the public but not binding the seller to the stated price even if

mentioned (Grainer & Sons v Gough, 1895)3.

An invitation to treat is not an actual offer that should result in a sale. Instead, it is information

provided to the public concerning products and services available at a set price. The public are

simply being invited to make offers. It is the prerogative of the seller to accept or reject the

buyer’s offer. Therefore no contract arises until the seller accepts the offer, which he may

otherwise reject (Burrows, 2009)4. Thus when the hair salon issues a circular, along with the

price, it is considered an invitation to treat. Jenny should be advised to know that there would be

no contract between her and the salon. She is obliged to pay the $100 for the massage should she

choose to get the service. In the case of Harris v Nickerson (1873)5 the plaintiff had seen a notice

regarding an auction of which he attended on the set day. However, the auction had been

cancelled. He then made a claim for travel expenses from the defendant. It was held that the

notice of the auction sale was an invitation to treat, not an offer. Thus there was no contract

between the parties. This was equally established in the case of Harvey v Facey (1893)6.

Application of the Law: Jenny cannot directly compel the salon to provide the massage at the

$10. She may however make claim for the loss suffered in terms of transportation and time spent

reaching the salon. The validity of this claim can best be determined by the courts. There is the
1
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1
2
Partridge v Crittenden (1968) 2 All ER 421
3
Grainer & Sons v Gough (1896) AC 325.
4
Burrows, A. (2009) Offer and Acceptance. A Casebook on Contract (2nd ed., pp. 5). Portland, OR, North America:
Hart Publishing.
5
Harris v Nickerson (1873) L.R. 8 Q.B. 286
6
Harvey v Facey (1893) A.C. 552.
1
principle that an offer can be revoked by the offeror at any point before acceptance (Keenan &

Riches, 2007)7. This was held in Dickinson v Dodds in 18768.

The general understanding is that no area of law requires that companies should honour the

indicated price even if it is incorrectly labelled. There is recognition that errors, omissions,

miscommunication and other flaws can give an impression that items have been offered at the

stated prices. This is most misleading when there are discounts and promotions on products and

services (Treitel, 2003)9. It is further acknowledged that forcing sellers to honour mistakes in

pricing can have ruinous effects. However, the advertiser’s intention to deceive must be checked.

In this cane, the salon owners must prove that the stated price was indeed a mistake so that it

does not fall under false advertising. The mistake must be simple and capable of being made by

the seller. If the error is too much, it may be required for the company to honor it (Stevens,

2004)10. In the case of Jenny, if it is established that Beauty and the Beast Hair Salon made an

intentional misrepresentation in the communication of the price in the circular, then the $10

would be payable and charges recognised accordingly. In a related consideration, Steyn, (1997) 11

submits that the appropriate step to take is to cancel the entire endeavour for a contract or agree

on different terms that would make both the plaintiff and defendant happy in the end.

Conclusion: The case of Jenny and the Beauty and the Beast Hair Salon demonstrates that an

advertisement by a seller to the public is nothing more than an invitation to treat and can be

accepted by anyone, not amounting to a contract until an offer is made and accepted by the

advertiser. Jenny has the option of revoking the offer without charges to the salon. However, if

she had taken the massage and later discovered that the original price was $100, not $10, Jenny

could sew for damages claiming misrepresentation and non-disclosure of essential facts by the

salon.

7
Keenan, D. and Riches, S., (2007). Business law. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
8
Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463
9
Treitel, G., (2003). The law of contract. London: Thomson/Sweet & Maxwell.
10
Stevens, R. (2004) The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (2004) 120 Law Quarterly Review 292
11
Steyn, J. (1997) Contract Law: Fulfilling the Reasonable Expectations of Honest Men.113 Law Quarterly Review
433
2
QUESTION TWO

Area of Law: The law allows the owner of a business to wilfully give it over to charity.

However, consideration should be given to any running contracts which must be considered in

the process of transitioning. This falls under the law of contract of employment (oral or written),

employer employee relationship.

Principle of Law: Law of contract exists between the employer and the employee. This can be

express, implied or statutory. In the case under review, express terms were in the contract in the

sense that they were specifically drawn and agreed upon by the two parties, whereby Emily

would receive the unsold dolls for an indefinite period of time. Express terms can be in writing

or orally. In the case, the terms were orally agreed upon and executed (Hamilton, 2019) 12. How

much would be paid to an employee, how regularly and in what form are aspects that are agreed

upon between the employee and the employer before the contract of employment is entered

into. Payment can be in money terms or non-cash, in-kind payments.

The case under review falls within the ambit of the principle that oral contracts have the same

effect as written ones but are harder to prove since what was agreed is not documented. More

difficult is the aspect of termination where certain terms cannot be directly established. The Mike

Musonda Kabwe V BP Zambia, (1996)13 case is a Zambian case. The court held that the

employee was entitled to an early retirement after his conditions of service had been altered to

his detriment and the contract of his employment was deemed to have been terminated. In

In the case under review Margaret could give the shop to charity. There is consideration

regarding Emily, who was promised to be receiving any unsold dolls for working in the shop.

According to O'Connor, (2021)14 the law provides under the contract of employment, an

aggrieved party can sue for any breaches on the contract of employment. It is apparent that the

12
Hamilton, N. (2019). Changing & Updating Employment Contracts - Hamilton Nash.
13
Mike Musonda Kabwe and B.P. Zambia Limited S.C.Z. Appeal No. 115 of 1996
14
O'Connor, G. (2021) What are the essential elements of an employment contract? Peninsula.
3
same dolls that Margaret had promised Emily are the ones that she now wished to give to

charity. Emily can consider taking the case as a breach of the contract of employment.

Application: The law does not recognise a family employment contract differently from other

legal relations. Emily had accepted to work for her mother with remuneration in form of unsold

dolls. The contract was not fixed in terms of how long she would work but there was a verbal

agreement that it would go on as was needed. Since Emily had received her dues as agreed upon,

she could claim under the breach of promise and contract law, taking that the employer had

breached the contract and defaulted in payment as promised. Indeed Margaret had promised to

give the unsold dolls to Emily and there is no information to the contrary that this would go on

until the time the time of retirement. That they would further auction and keep the proceeds may

not hold. The challenge with Emily would be to prove that the contract terms were actually

agreed upon, since there was not written record of the terms.

The actions of Margaret as employer of Emily amounts to the termination of contract with a

change in conditions relating to the contract already established. Such an adjustment in

conditions was disputed in Ng’ Andwe & Others v Zamox Limited & Another (1999) 15. The case

indicates the aspect of unfair dismissal of Emily as confirmed in Brownson v. Honda of Canada

Mfg., (2013)16.

Conclusion: Basing on the law of contract, particularly employment contract, Emily would have

to take a lawsuit against the employer Margarete, for defaulting on the contractual agreement to

have the unsold dolls given to her. There is also the option for a settlement that Emily should get

the proceeds for her compensation instead of donating them to charity. By her actions, Margarete

denied Emily her contractually deserved compensation for work performed.

15
Ng’ Andwe & Others v Zamox Limited & Another (S.C.Z. Judgment 13 of 1999) [1999] ZMSC 27 (01 June 1999)
16
Brownson v. Honda of Canada Mfg., 2013 ONSC 896
4
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Burrows, A. (2009) Offer and Acceptance. A Casebook on Contract (2nd ed., pp. 5). Portland,
OR, North America: Hart Publishing.

Keenan, D. and Riches, S., (2007). Business law. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

O'Connor, G. (2021) What are the essential elements of an employment contract? Peninsula.

Treitel, G., (2003). The law of contract. London: Thomson/Sweet & Maxwell.

Journals

Hamilton, N. (2019). Changing & Updating Employment Contracts - Hamilton Nash.

Stevens, R. (2004) The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (2004) 120 Law Quarterly
Review 292

Steyn, J. (1997) Contract Law: Fulfilling the Reasonable Expectations of Honest Men.113 Law
Quarterly Review 433.

Cases

Brownson v. Honda of Canada Mfg., 2013 ONSC 896

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1

Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463

Grainer & Sons v Gough (1896) AC 325.

Harris v Nickerson (1873) L.R. 8 Q.B. 286

Harvey v Facey (1893) A.C. 552.

Mike Musonda Kabwe and B.P. Zambia Limited S.C.Z. Appeal No. 115 of 1996

Ng’ Andwe & Others v Zamox Limited & Another (S.C.Z. Judgment 13 of 1999) [1999] ZMSC
27 (01 June 1999)

Partridge v Crittenden (1968) 2 All ER 421