1.

A legally binding contract should be composed by offer, acceptance,

consideration and intention to create legal relationship. An offer is an expression of
likeliness to contract on certain terms, made with a purpose to be accepted by
someone who is willing to accept all the stipulated terms. Consequently, both parties
will be binding. An invitation to treat is just an expression of likeliness to negotiate
with others. There are still things that are unsure and unclear. In Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke Ball, the Carbolic company issued an advertisement that they will pay for the
people who caught influenza. The court held that the advertisement was an offer to
the whole world. As they deposited money in Alliance Bank, this ensured that they
did make a promise that they would be paying when the conditions met. According
to the persuasive authority of Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store Inc., if the
advertisement is "concise, conclusive, specific, and leaves hardly anything open for
negotiation," it is also an offer. The same was found in Alvin. He made an unilateral
offer via email to ask his worker to look for his stolen laptop on Monday, only
himself was bound by his promise for this stage. Unilateral contracts are deemed to
bind only the promisor and not the promisee. The workers have their own choice as
to whether to accept the offer. Alvin’s email should not be seen as an intention to
treat (ITT), for example Partridge v Crittenden, as all the details there are in clarity
and certainty.

It is a general rule that an acceptance should be communicated to the offeror

by the offeree. Acceptance can be by words or conduct as per Reveille Independent
LLC v Anotech International. It is only valid when it was brought to the attention of
the offeror, as per Powell v Lee. There is an exception in unilateral offers. A bilateral
contract differs from a unilateral contract, which is a promise made by one party in
exchange for the other party performing some act. There is no need for the workers
to turn up and tell him that they are going to accept the offer. All they need to do is
to return the laptop or provide the information of the laptop directly to accept the
offer. They will need to provide consideration for the promise of Alvin and adhere to
the terms stated if they are preparing for entering this offer.
On Wednesday, he put a notice on the office board that he decided not to bother his
old laptop to withdraw his offer. When an offer is made to the particular group of
people, the offeror should make sure that the revocation of an offer should bring to
the attention of this particular group of people. In a bilateral contract, revocation
must be informed to the offeree to be effective as in Byrne & Co v Leon Van
Tienhoven & Co. For a revocation in a unilateral offer, in Shuey v USA, the revocation
should give the same notoriety and prominence in the original advertisement. On
the facts, Alvin’s revocation on the office notice board can be claimed that it was
efficient as the particular group, the workers would definitely have seen when they
come to work. However, Alvin should ensure that all the workers would come to
work on that day. On Friday afternoon, he sent an email to all the employees to
again revoke his offer repeatedly. The same method to use as in the original offer
would be best for his employees.

There are five principal methods when one wants to terminate an offer. The
first is an offer may be revoked before it is accepted. Second, an offer can be
cancelled if the offeree rejects it. This came when there was a counter-offer made by
an offeree in Hyde v Wrench. Thirdly, An offer may be terminated due to the passage
of time. An offer with no time limit is assumed to be valid for a reasonable period of
time. In fact, Alvin did not state the time limit of this offer. Fourth, an offer that is
stated to expire if a specific event occurs cannot be accepted after the event has
occurred. Lastly, the offer will be terminated by the offeror's death.

(a) Betty had no idea about the offer made by Alvin. She accidentally found it
and returned it to Alvin. The general rule of accepting an unilateral offer is the
offeree must have the idea of this offer in one’s mind. As if there is no offer in one’s
mind, they can’t accept an offer and form a contract. In Gibbons v Proctor, the
offeree was aware of the offer just before the information that was needed by the
offeror. Hence, he was entitled to claim the reward. In R v Clarke, Clarke provided
evidence to clear himself, not to claim for reward. McMillan Cj mentioned that
Clarke can’t form a contract when he did not intend to act as a offeree and enter a
contract. It is the same when one does not know about the offer or forgetting it. In
contrast, Denman, c.J stated that as long as one satisfied the terms of an offer, they
will be rewarded in Williams v Carwardine. The same in Ewan McKendrick, he
supported that provided the offeror gets what he wants, the offeree will be
awarded. According to the cases above, she did not have any motive to enter a
contract. She would not form a contract with Alvin and get the reward. On the other
hand, Betty would be entitled to the claim if only the court adopts the argument by
Ewan McKendrick. In Conclusion, Betty will be less likely to claim for the rewards as
she did not know about the offer. Alvin does not need to pay him.

(b) Chad was not aware of the revocation on the office notice board. The
revocation can be claimed as insufficient as it was not completely the same method
when posted the offer as per Shuey v USA. The revocation should give the same
notoriety and prominence in the original advertisement. Chad can claim it was
insufficient to bring the revocation to him. He started to research on Tuesday. In
Great Northern Railway Co. v Witham, acceptance requires the completion of an act.
This idea had changed as Sir Frederick Pollock said that acceptance not started when
completion of the act, but when the starting of an act. The general rule in Payne v
Cave, it would be unjust to withdraw the offer after the offeree has begun an act. In
Errington v Errington affirmed that when performance has started, it is too late to
revoke the offer. In Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees, the court upheld that the
offeror has an implied obligation not to stop him from finishing his part of the
performance. Furthermore, the act of Chad finding the laptop in a second-hand sale
may regard him as providing the information of Alvin’s laptop. On the facts, Chad
would be entitled to claim the rewards as he had done all the acts required by Alvin
and the revocation on the board was not valid to him. Alvin should pay him.

(c) Diya received the withdrawal notice from Freddie on Thursday. Revocation
may occur through a third party that is trustworthy. In Dickinson v Dodds, the court
held that a message from the defendant via the third party to the claimants was
valid. Hence, there is no offer by Alvin anymore. The revocation is effective to Diya
even if Diya found his laptop. She is unable to form a contract with him. Diya
returned Alvin’s laptop on Friday’s morning. This act should not be seen to be valid
in a contract as the offer had already been revoked. Alvin does not need to pay her.

(d) Evan got the laptop on Tuesday’s morning and Alvin shouted at him that he
wanted to revoke the offer. This revocation had come too late as Evan had already
completed Alvin’s required act. In Great Northern Railway Co. v Witham, acceptance
requires the completion of an act. This idea had changed as Sir Frederick Pollock said
that acceptance not started when completion of the act, but when the starting of an
act. The general rule in Payne v Cave , it would be unjust to withdraw the offer after
the offeree has begun an act. In Errington v Errington affirmed that when
performance has started, it is too late to revoke the offer. In Daulia v Four Millbank,
the court upheld that the offeror has an implied obligation not to stop him from
finishing his part of the performance. It would be unfair for him when he is about to
complete the whole act required. As well as Evan had completed the act, the
contract is valid. Alvin should not stop him from doing his act. He can’t revoke a
contract when he had already seen that Evan has nearly completed the act. Alvin
must pay him.

In conclusion, there is a valid and binding contract formed between Alvin and
Chad, Alvin and Evan. Alvin should pay both of them. On the other hand, There is no
contract between Alvin and Betty, Alvin and Diva as the revocation had brought to
their attention. They could not form a contract with Alvin.

(1450 words)
2b.
The general rule is that performance of an existing legal and contractual duty
by contract usually would not be a consideration.

Existing legal duty should not be a consideration when the promisee does
nothing beyond what he is already legally required to do. Promisor did not get any
benefit and the promisee did not get any detriment other than they were already
entitled. For example, Leeds United FC v West Yorkshire Police, there is a dispute
between the two parties over who is responsible for the protection for the vicinity of
land that is owned by Leeds United FC. The court in favour of the football club as
they mentioned that the protection was under the duty of police to safeguard
property, deter crime, and maintain the order in society. Hence, the football club
need not pay the police as this is their original duty.

In Collins v Godefroy, Collins sued because she was not paid as originally
promised by Godefroy. The court held that Collins would need to appear in court
formerly. Hence, her appearance should not be seen as a consideration. There is no
extra act that can be seen as consideration.

In Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council , the colliery manager

requested extra police protection and insisted on having police officers stationed on
the premises. However, he refused to pay the extra police. The police had gone
above and beyond their call of duty by stationing officers at the colliery. In doing so
they provided good consideration. As a result, the contract was enforceable, and the
police were able to obtain the amount charged. In Harris v Sheffield United Football
Club Ltd, the court held that the police should be paid as To maximise attendance,
the football club decided to organize matches on Saturday afternoons. This
increased the risk to law and order, so the need for a large police presence was self-
inflicted. As a result, the police services were required to be paid for. Section 25 of
the Police Act 1996 further ensures that the police should be paid. The chief officer
of police of a police force may provide special police services anywhere subject to
payment of charges to the police authority on such scales as that authority may
decide.

In Stilk v Myrick, before the storm, two sailors deserted the ship. It was
believed that the captain needed not to pay the sailor as promised. On account of,
they had only carried out their contractual obligations. The desertion of two sailors
on a ship was viewed as a normal occurrence, and the sailors did not go above and
beyond what was contractually agreed. Similarly in the Hartley v Ponsonby, 17 out of
37 sailors had deserted the ship. The court ruled that the sailors in Hartley had gone
above and beyond their contractual duties because the crew had shrunk to the point
where the rest of the voyage was more dangerous. As a result, the sailors had given
new consideration in exchange for the captain's promise to pay more. The
differences in two cases, the quantity of sailors who deserted the ship. Lots of
desertion of sailors may be seen as detriments to the sailors, in exchange, the
captain should have paid more to inspire the sailors.

In Williams v Roffey Bros, as the plaintiffs can' t keep up the progress, the
defendants offered the plaintiffs extra money if the work was completed on time
and the plaintiff agreed to a change in work arrangements. Despite the fact that the
plaintiffs were only doing what they were supposed to be doing, the defendant
would get extra benefits as the defendants would save money by avoiding the
penalty clause, the expense and difficulties of finding another contractor, as well as
the modified working conditions would also benefit defendants. Arrangements. All
these cases would only apply when there is no economic duress. For instance, In
Williams v Roffey Bros, the defendants reluctantly suggested the plaintiff. This is just
an exception to the performance of an existing legal duty by contract.

The progress of the court can be seen as it does not take much persuasion to
discover the existence of consideration. In Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd, the court
would see that the promise by the company is a benefit to the employees in return
that the employees would not resign.
 WRN Ltd v Ayris still stands for the performance of an existing legal contract
usually would not be a consideration. However, in certain circumstances, when one
party demands for extra service or stuff, the other party suffers detriment that is
beyond their original duty, performance of an existing legal and contractual duty can
suffice as consideration.

(752 word)
2c.
In Currie v Misa, the court defined consideration as "a good consideration in
the sense of the law may consist either of the same rights, interest, profit, or
benefits to one party or some forbearance, detriment, or loss of responsibility given
suffered or undergone by the others." Consideration is a crucial element in an
agreement. If there is an absence of consideration, there is no contract form. In
simple terms, it is based on the idea of reciprocity, that both parties in a contract
should exchange something in enforcing a promise. Parties should either obtain or
lose something. They use a promise to exchange another promise. Anything could
amount to consideration. There are two orthodox interpretations by Professor
Atiyah and Professor Trietel. Professor Atiyah states that the courts find the phrase
‘consideration’ as a reason to enforce a promise and create a contract. On the other
hand, Professor Trietel got a comprehension that was completely contrary to
Professor Atiyah’s. He holds that there is a clear theory of consideration in the
English law. The court would define the benefit and detriment in every case.

‘Past consideration is not a good consideration.’ You can’t enforce a promise

when the consideration which you have provided is past. It means that the
consideration was already complete prior to my promise, yet nothing new was given
in exchange for my promise. The general rule in consideration is if there is a new
extra benefit that one wants to add to a pre existing contract, there should be a new
consideration given otherwise there is no obligation on the other party as the
consideration has passed. Past consideration does not apply in a new promise.

In Roscorla v Thomas, there is a contract between them in purchasing and

selling a horse. Thomas bought a horse from Roscorla. After they concluded their
contract, Roscorla promised that the horse was sound. In fact, Thomas found out
that the horse was unsound and he sued Roscorla. The court held that there is no
obligation on the status of the horse. The consideration is only given for the sale of
the horse itself. It is obvious that the court valued the sequence of the event. They
do not even look at words stated in contract.

In Eastwood v Kenyon, the guardian used and even loaned money to raise the
girl up. The girl promised that she would pay it off when she had the ability to do it.
After years, the girl’s husband promised to help to pay it off but he went back on his
word. He refused to pay. The Court ruled in favour of the defendant. The claimant's
actions occurred prior to the husband and daughter's promises, and thus were out of
time. This was not a good consideration. As a result, there was no contract.

In Re McArdle, William McArdle left a house in equal shares to his five

children. Mrs Marjorie, the wife of one of these sons invested some money in house
improvements and renovation. She had all five of McArdle's children sign a
document promising to repay her the money after the repairs were completed. One
day, Mrs McArdle requested payment. The other four sons, however, refused to pay
her. She attempted to enforce her ownership of the property in court. Mrs McArdle
had already completed the work when she requested payment. Her consideration
was in the past. Consideration of the past is not a good consideration. As a result,
the agreement was null and void,

However, there are some exceptions stating that past consideration can be a
good consideration. The first requirement is the act must have been performed at
the plea of the promisor. In Lampleigh v Brathwait, Brathwait spent lots of money on
the way to do the act Lampleigh required. Lampleigh promised to pay Brathwait but
he did not. The plaintiff was successful in court. The plaintiff had acted on the
defendant's request so it is acceptable that the promise was made after the plaintiff
had taken action. Secondly, Both parties must have a reasonable expectation that
payment will be made. As per Re Casey's Patents, Casey must have assumed his work
would be compensated because the work was not merely a gesture of goodwill but
something a manager would have expected to be rewarded for. LAstly, the promise
must be legally binding.
 In conclusion, past consideration is not a good consideration. As if past
consideration is a good consideration with no condition, one will take the benefit to
start a bad bargain by adding any condition. This will lead to injustice in the end.

(748 words)
3.
Where one party has not given genuine consent of their own free will,
vitiating factors prevent a contract from being fully binding. It may appear from this
that where one or both parties are mistaken about some aspect of the contract
being entered into, that party can't be said to be giving consent to it , as they believe
the consent is to something else. There are two types of mistake, which are bilateral
mistake and unilateral mistake. Furthermore, there are common mistake and mutual
mistake in bilateral mistake. Besides, the unilateral mistake can be devided into
three parts, which are mistake as to the identity of the party, mistake as to a
signature in document and the last, mistake as to the terms of the contract.
Steven visited Marcus to ask for the sale for a grand piano. Marcus selled
Steven the piano with a reduced price as Steven disguised a star in YouTube, Alberto.
This is a face to face contract between both parties. There is a unilateral mistake
made by Marcus here.

There are two common types of unilateral mistake, either a mistake as to

attribute or identity. A mistake as to attribute, for example one of the party thinks
about the attributes of one in creating a contract. Court will usually not be reluctant
to help. The contract will only hold the contract between the two parties to be valid,
the owner has to bear the consequence; On the contrary, if there is a mistake as to
identity, the court will be willing to help and hold a contract void. The buyer would
usually get back what he or she formerly entitled. A mistake as to identity is
fundamentally important to a contract.

For contracts made at a distance or non face-to-face, the case would usually
be a mistake as to identity. As both parties can’t meet each other. They can purely
believe in what has been said by the other party. For instance, in Cundy v Lindsay,
Lindsay received an order by post thinking that she is selling handkerchiefs to
Blenkiron by a signing. Actually, the one who started that order was Blenkarn.
Blenkarn received it and sold it to Cundy. The court held that there is no contract
between Lindsay and Blekarn, they would have the right to take back the
handkerchiefs from Cundy. As Lindsay had intended to create a contract with
Blenkiron & Co, not Blenkarn. This would be a fundamental mistake in contract.
Hence, the contract voided.

In King’s Norton Metal v Edridge, Mr Wallis by using the name 'Hallam & Co'
ordered goods from the claimants by post by using a stationery depicting a large
factory. Court held that there is a contract as this is a mistake as to attributes. He
believed in the creditworthiness of a large factory, not the buyer itself. Therefore,
the contract is valid. The difference between both cases was that Cundy v Lindsay
simply had different customers in mind, King’s Norton Metal v Edridge had different
types of customers. Lastly, in Shogun Finance v Hudson, Shogun sold the car to the
finance company, then only sold it to the customer, which is a fraudster, lastly, the
fraudster sold it to Mr Hudson. It was a contract in the distance as the fraudster did
not meet the finance company. He got to pay a 10 percent deposit to get a car as he
impersonated Durlabh Patel on account of his credit rating. Shogun discovered this
and sued Mr Hudson to recuperate the car. The court held that it was a mistake as to
identity. The contract would be void. The fraudster had no good title to pass the
ownership to Mr Hudson.

There is a presumption in a face to face contract, both parties should pretend

that they are creating contracts with the party present in such a bargain. Even if one
of the parties disguise a famous one or use a false name intently to deceit the other
party, the presumption is still carrying on. Face to face bargain usually would not be
seen as a mistake as to the identity. There are two similar storylines as this case In
Lewis v Averay and Philips v Brooks. In the former case, the buyer acted and signed
as a film actor, Richard Greene, and even showed the buyer a Pinewood Studios pass
to prove his identity. He had been given a cheque for buying Lewis's car for filming.
He went to the bank and found it was worthless. Meanwhile, the deceiver sold it to a
Mr Averay. The court found that there is a contract as Lewis reluctantly sold the car
to the deceiver. He should pretend that he was bargaining with the deceiver, not
Richard Greene. This would be wrong as to attributes. He believed in Richard
Greene’s attributes. The contract between the deceiver and Mr Averay is valid and
Lewis would not be able to get back his car.

In the later case, Phillips v Brooks, He was permitted to obtain the ring on
credit of Sir George without being obliged to pay for it. In the blink of an eye, the
rogue sold it to Brooks. As the evidence above, the ring was sold on one’s credibility,
this would be a mistake as to attributes too. The same result in Lewis v Averay
applied.

Moreover, in Ingram v Little, the Ingrams sold their car by receiving a cheque
from a deceiver who impersonated P.Hutchinson after checking with his address.
They discover the fraud and meanwhile, their car has already been sold to Little. The
court accepted that there is no contract between them as the Imgrams intended to
bargain with P.Hutchinson not the deceiver. Ingrams were successfully retrieved
from Little. This is the only case where the court did not follow the presumption in a
face to face contract. Later, in Shogun Finance, the House of Lords ruled that this
case was decided incorrectly.

The reduced price by Steven can be seen as he mistakenly thought that

Steven is a YouTube star. As Steven stole a cheque from Alberto and fraudulently
signed his name. When meeting the YouTube star, Marcus got deceived by him in
starstruck. Marcus did not intend to sell his piano to the fraudster, but to Alberto.
The presumption in a face to face contract, both parties should pretend that they are
creating contracts with the party present in such a bargain, was applying here.
Marcus should not have the other person in his mind. He sold the piano by trusting
the creditworthiness of Alberto. Court would not be reluctant to help Marcus as he
made a mistake as to attributes. This can’t be said it was radically different from the
original contract.

Marcus purchased a guitar, the shop then unreluctant to send it to him as

they found out their assistant wrongly attached the incorrect price tag to the guitar.
This would be a mistake as to the quality of the subject matter. In Belle v Lever Bros,
the plaintiffs were obligated to compensation for the dismissal of their employment
contract, but they could be fired without compensation as they had violated their
employment contract. They did not keep in mind that when dismissing. The court
held that there was no mistake about the quality of their services and the
compensation was legitimate. As it is not sufficiently fundamental to avoid the
contract.

In Leaf v International Galleries, the plaintiff bought a painting that was

claimed to be painted by Constable but was not. The contract is valid as the entire
contract was focused on the purchase of a painting, and the plaintiff received a
painting for a higher cost than was expected. The courts uphold that it was freedom
for everyone to set a price if only both parties agreed upon it. Also in Harrison and
Jones v Burton and Lancaster, both parties entered into a contract which trusted
that it was a sale of pure kapok, in fact it included some brush cotton which affected
the finished goods. The court had held that it was not sufficiently fundamental to
avoid the contract.

In Solle v Butcher, the defendant paid a higher rent than the maximum rent
stated in the Rent Act 1923. It was not sufficiently fundamental to avoid the contract
but Lord Denning introduced equity into the strict common law to reduce the
hardship that would be encountered by the claimant. However, the approach of
Lord Denning had been criticised in the case Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris Salvage
(International) Ltd. There was a misunderstanding of the defendant in the distance
from the claimant's vessels. They refused to pay and cancelled the contract with the
claimant. The defendant argued that there was an erroneous mistake concerning the
fundamentals of contract. The court held that the claimant won as even though the
distance is far, but the performance of the contract was still possible. It was not a
sufficiently fundamental mistake that was radically different from the original
contract.

On the facts, the mistake as to guitar should not be seen as a sufficiently

fundamental wrong in contract that fulfils the doctrine of common mistake. The
contract is still based on the guitar itself. The contract is still valid, Marcus will be
entitled to the guitar.
In conclusion, the piano that had selled by Marcus to Steven, is a mistake as
to attributes of buyer, it was a mistake of Marcus himself. The contract would
remain valid. Marcus can’t get back his piano. Lastly, Marcus will get his guitar that
have been paid as the mistake would not consider sufficient fundametal. The
contract between him and music shop is valid.

( 1483 words)