CONTRACT- OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE

QUESTIONS

Q1-

We understand by the facts of the case that Arvind and Daphne have had certain communication.
The core issue in the question is to determine whether this communication consists of a valid offer
or not and whether that offer was reciprocated by a valid acceptance or not. The same is discussed
below with relevant case laws and legal analysis. Whereby, we shall advice the parties regarding
their contractual liabilities accordingly. It is important to lay emphasis on the fact that to formulate
a legally binding contract the five fundamental requirements must be met which is offer,
acceptance, consideration, capacity and intention.

The primary issue in this case is to determine whether the contract which shall be formulated will be
bilateral or unilateral in nature. For the sake of clarification we shall define both. A bilateral contract is a
contract where both the parties simultaneously take the responsibility of performance whereas a unilateral
contract is a contract where one party takes the responsibility of performance the other party may or may
not. In our case we can clearly see that Arvind is taking the responsibility of giving the car while Daphne
is taking the responsibility of giving the money. In order for this contract to be executed both the parties
are simultaneously taking the responsibility of performance hence we conclude that the contract is
bilateral in nature.

The secondary issue in the question is to establish whether the initial communication will be classified as
an offer or an invitation to treat (ITT). An offer was defined in the case of Storer v MCC where one party
invites the other party into a binding contract the statement must be clear and specific and must require no
further negotiation. Whereas pursuant to the principle stipulated in the case of Gibson v MCC an ITT is
where one party invites the other party to make them an offer the statement must be unclear and
ambiguous. However it is evident from the facts provided above that Arvind had placed his car in a
showroom, this will fall within the ambit of display of goods. The relevant case in this regard is Fisher v
Bell and Pharmaceutical Society v Boots Chemist which sets out a well settled principle that all display of
goods will be classified as an ITT. Applying this principle in our case we hereby conclude that Arvind
had made an ITT for $40000. IN response Daphne has made a clear and specific statement which will be
an offer for $35000. However this was rejected by Arvind hence the offer lapsed. Subsequently, Arvind
made another ITT for $45000 by changing the sticker, this was again responded by Daphne with an offer
of $40000. When left with no response Daphne made a new offer of $45000. Hence Daphne is the
Offeror and Arvind is the Offeree.

The last aspect is to determine whether Arvind has made any acceptance or not since he is the offeree.
The general rule in this regard is set out in the case of Entores v Miles which clearly stipulated that
acceptance can only be done through communication but there is no communication by Arvind.
Moreover, according to the case of Brogden v Metropolitan Railways acceptance can also be done
through conduct but there is no conduct shown by Arvind. Hence, reliance must be placed on the case of
Felthouse v Bindley which suggests that silence will never amount to acceptance and since Arvind has
remained silence there will be no acceptance in our case. Furthermore, the acceptance to the general rule
of silence contained in Rust v Abbey is not applicable in our case since both the parties have not mutually
agreed upon silence to be the mode of acceptance.
Q2-
Natalie wants to have her drive re-laid and contacts Vinvit Ltd after seeing their advert in the local
paper, ‘£10 per square metre of brick drive-phone for a quote.’ Vinvit Ltd call round to measure
the drive and then sends Natalie a quote: ‘Laying 60 square metres brick drive £80, with labour
need confirmation in writing by Saturday 1st May’. Natalie e-mails Vinvited on 27th April and asks
if this quote includes restoring her brick wall on her boundary. Vinvit Ltd replies by e-mail saying
it does not. Natalie sends a letter on 28th April to Vinvit Ltd accepting their original price of £80.
This letter arrives on 30th April. On 30th April she meets her neighbour Sara, who says she can
rebuild her wall and lay the drive for £80 in total. Wanting to help her neighbour out she agrees
that she can do this. Natalie immediately calls Vinvit Ltd and leaves a message on their answering
machine saying she no longer requires them to do her drive. Vinvit Ltd never hear this message as
they do not check their answering machines and arrive on Saturday after reading the letter to do
the work and find Sara already there, Advise Vinvit Ltd.

Summary of Facts
We understand that Natalie (N) is decrous of having her drive re-laid and has commenced communication
with Vinvit Ltd (V) who are contractors who re lay drives Accordingly, based on the facts of the case, the
primary issue is to determine whether a valid contract has been formed then N is obligated to provide
compensation to V even if she is not proceeding to have her drive re-laid from them. On the contrary, if a
contract is not made, then there is no obligation on ether party to pay compensation or re-lay the drive.
We note that a contract can only be made if there is a valid offer which is accepted. There is consideration
from both parties and intentions to contract (I create legal relations) . Finally, both parties should also be
competent to enter into a contract (i.e. capacity)
Unilateral or Bilateral
In light of the above, the first aspect which we need to determine is whether there is a valid offer
discussing this, we need to analyze theoretically whether the contract (if formed) parties would be
unilateral or bilateral. A unilateral contract is where obligation rests between the with the offeror
notwithstanding whether the offeree is specified or willing to even take up any responsibility (Carlil v
Carbolic Smoke Ball) (Errington v Errington and Woods) whereas a bilateral contract is whether
simultaneous responsibilities are undertaken by both parties and usually the offeror and offeree are
specified In the present case, N and V have initiated communication and if there is meeting of minds the
obligation to pay money and have the drive re-laid would simultaneously arise thereby make this a
bilateral contract (if made)
Accordingly, the second issue now is to determine whether the initial communication which reached N
from V through the advertisement would be considered as an offer or an invitation to treat (TT). N from
V through the advertisement would be considered as an offer or an invitation to treat (“ITT”). We note
that offer is an invitation to enter into a binding contract (Storer v. MCC) whereas an ITT is inviting
another to provide an offer (Gibson v. MCC). We further note that pursuant to the case of (Patridge v
Crittenden), all advertisements for bilateral contracts are considered as ITTs (unless there are any terms
which promote goodwill (Carlil v. Carbolic)). In view of this, the advertisement does not have any
specific terms which show good will considered as an ITT. Or give rise to any responsibility therefore it
will be
Based on the advertisement, N has requested V to look at the drive and provide a 200 quote which they
have. Accordingly, the quote provided by V to N is clear, specific and has been directly communicated
and will be considered as a valid offer from V to N containing a condition that they require acceptance in
writing until May 1. However, we need to consider whether the subsequent email of N to V regarding her
boundry wall would result in lapse of the offer Relying on the (McLean case) if the offeree requests
further information then the original offer stands and does not change the anything.
Since V is the offeror and N is the offeree, the next issue is to determine whether a valid acceptance has
occurred or not. The general rule of acceptance in bilateral contracts is that it has to be communicated, all
terms have to be unconditionally accepted (mirror image rule) and the responsibility of communication
lies with the offeree (Entores v. Miles). Further, acceptance can also be by conduct (Brogden v. MR) but
cannot be by silence (Felthouse v. Bindley). In view of this, since the acceptance was through post,
communication can only occur when the post is read Therefore, if such rule was to apply, the acceptance
would have the letter on the 28th of April. Notwithstanding the postal rule, we would like to highlight that
postal rule does not apply (Hollwell Semities they require V Hughes). In our case, V has clearly
mentioned in their quote (i.e. the offer) that confirmation (ie. acceptance) in "writing" Which is only
possible if the letter is delivered to them and they have read the same. Therefore, acceptance will be at the
time the letter was read which presumably will be sometime on 30th April

Accordingly, we understand that N has tried to withdraw her acceptance through leaving a message to V
on their answering machine. Hence, we need to now determine whether the withdrawal of acceptance was
before the actual acceptance on the 30th of April as abovementioned. We note that there are no judicial
pronouncements of English courts specifying the rules to withdraw an acceptance but reliance can be
placed on the Austrialian case of (Dunmore v Alexandar) which has strong persuasive value based on its
sound logic that withdrawal of acceptance is possible and will be valid if the communication of
withdrawal is received before the actual acceptance. In light of this, we see that V did receive the letter
which they read but they never heard the answering machine therefore communication of withdrawal has
not been received and the letter has been read thereby proving acceptance.

In view of the foregoing and by way of conclusion, we have come to the opinion that a valid offer has
been made and acceptance has been communicated to V prior to the withdrawal notice. The transaction
contains valid consideration as there were monetary promises made. In light of the commercial context,
intentions to create legal relations are also present and the parties are not minors or of unsound mind
thereby proving capacity. Hence, a contract is legally made between V and N and if N refuses to provide
V the opportunity to re-lay her drive then there will be breach of contract.
Q3-
On the 2nd of April, an announcement appears in the newspapers to the effect that shares in
Digger, a gold exploration company, may be subscribed for £5 each. Later that day Goldbug sees
the announcement and fills in the application form in the newspaper requesting 1,000 shares. His
application is received by Digger the following day and the Company Secretary promptly sends the
share certificates to Goldbug by that morning's post. During the day a rich seam of gold is
discovered by Digger in Cumbria and the Company Secretary telephones Goldbug informing him
that they do not wish to accept his application and would like him to return the certificates when
they arrive. By the time he receives the Secretary's request, Goldbug has heard of the gold
discovery and wishes to buy the shares after all. Advise Goldbug.
Summary of Facts
We understand that G and D have initiated conversations regarding buying and selling shares in Digger.
Based on the communications in the given facts, we need to determine if a valid contract has been formed
or not. Formation of a contract requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, intentions to create legal
relations and capacity.
Uni or Bi
In order to determine if a contract is formed, we need to first identify, whether the nature of any contract
formed would be unilateral or bilateral. Unilateral contracts are those where one party i.e. the offeror
takes responsible unconditionally (Carlil v. Carbolic) (Errington v. Errington) whereas bilateral contracts
are those where both parties take responsibility together on offer and acceptance. In our case, none of the
parties have taken responsibility at the outset i.e. sale / purchase obligations of the shares will be taken at
the time of offer / acceptance (if any). Therefore, any contract formed, will be bilateral in nature.
Initial Communication-offer or ITT
Since any contract formed will be bilateral, the second issue is to determine whether the initial
communication from Digger to Goldbug in the form of an advertisement to subscribe shares will be
considered as an offer or an invitation to treat (ITT). Offer is inviting another to enter into a binding
contract (Storer v. MCC) whereas an ITT is inviting an offer from the other party (Gibson v. MCC). The
general rule for advertisements is that they are ITTS (Patridge v Crittenden). Therefore, D has given an
ITT to the world including G through the advertisement.
Identify the offeror and offeree and standing offer
Accordingly, the third issue is to determine the standing offer and the identity of the offeror and offeree.
Based on the facts, G has clearly given an offer to buy 1000 shares in D through submitting the
application form. Therefore, the offeror shall be G, offeree shall be D and the standing offer shall be to
subscribe for 1000 shares at GBP 5/- each
Lock the date and time of acceptance
The fourth issue is to determine whether the offeree has accepted the offer or not. The general rule for
acceptance in bilateral contracts is that it has to be communicated and should mirror the offer (Entores v.
Miles), can also be by conduct (Brogden v. MR) but cannot be by silence (Felthouse v. Bindley) unless
the offeror and offeree both accept the silence arrangement and the offeror puts himself at risk (obiter
statement in Rust v. Abbey). However, as D has posted their acceptance through sending the share
certificates, reliance will be placed the postal rule introduced in Adams v. Lindslay and reiterated in
subsequent cases such as Dunlop v. Higgins and Household Fire Insurance v. Grant. According to this
rule, acceptance will occur at the time of posting the share certificates. According to this rule, acceptance
will occur at the time of posting the share certificates. We also note that post in the given circumstances
appears to be a reasonable mode of acceptance (Henthron v. Fraser).
See if withdrawal is before or after acceptance
The final issue now is that whether the phone call by the Company Secretary to G revoking the
acceptance will be valid or not. The general rule is that acceptance can be withdrawn at any point before
the actual acceptance but the withdrawal has to be communicated (Australian case of Dunmore v.
Alexander). In our case, the phone call and communication of withdrawal occur after posting the letter
(i.e. acceptance). Therefore, the withdrawal will be invalid and acceptance will occur. Since the company
is giving shares and G is paying money there is consideration, both parties have the capacity In enter into
a contract and there is intentions to create legal relations (i.e. commercial context). Hence, a contract will
be formed and G is legally entitled to keep the shares.
Q4-
Arnold, an electrician, develops novel lampshades. Earlier this year, he developed a new lampshade
suitable for use with compact fluorescent lights. On 1 May, he emailed Bob and Charlie, both
wholesalers to whom he had previously sold lampshades. In his email, he asked each of them
whether he would be interested in becoming sole distributor of his new lampshade. On 5 May, Bob
and Charlie both emailed Arnold independently, each stating that he was interested in becoming
sole distributor for the lampshade and requested further information. On 7 May Arnold emailed
Bob: „I offer you the post of sole distributor of the lampshade at a basic 10% commission. If I hear
nothing from you by 14 May, I will assume that this is acceptable to you." Bob immediately posted
a first class letter to Arnold in which he accepted Arnold"s offer. The letter did not arrive until 16
May. In the meantime, Charlie, having heard nothing further from Arnold, posted a letter to
Arnold in which he offered to become Arnold's sole distributor for a 20% commission. Arnold
received Charlie's letter on 15 May. Arnold immediately telephoned Bob and told him that the post
of sole distributor was no longer available. Bob insists that there is a binding contract to appoint
him as sole distributor. Advise Arnold.

Summary of Facts
We understand that Arnold ("A") is desirous of granting sole distributorship of his lampshades and has
started communications with Bob ("B") and Charlie ("C"). Based on the facts, we need to determine
whether a valid contract will be formed with B or C. To form a valid contract, there has to be an offer,
acceptance, consideration, intentions and capacity.
Box 1: Unilateral or Bilateral
In order to determine if a contract is formed or not, we will first see whether the nature of the contract (if
formed), will be unilateral or bilateral. A unilateral contract is where one party takes responsibility of
performance and acceptance is only by conduct (Carlil v. Carbolic), whereas a bilateral contract is where
both parties take responsibility of performance together and acceptance is by communication as well. In
our case, the contract for distributorship requires both parties to perform their obligations and acceptance
will have to be communicated. Therefore, any contract that may be formed will be bilateral in nature .
Box 2: Initial Communication-offer or IIT
Since the nature of contract will be bilateral, the second issue is to determine whether the initial
communication by email from A to B and C would be considered as an offer or invitation to treat (“ITT”).
Offer is inviting another to enter into a binding contract (Storer v. MCC) whereas ITT is inviting an offer
from the other party (Gibson v. MCC). Since A has directly communicated through email, we need to
interpret the communication, if its clear and specific, it will be considered as an offer and if unclear, it
will be considered as an ITT. The email clearly does not specify any terms and states whether B and C
would be “interested in becoming sole distributor. The email will clearly be an ITT.
Box 3: Identify the offeror, offeree and standing offer
Since the email is an ITT, the third issue is to consider all the communications firstly between A and B
and determine who is the offeree, who is the offeree and what is the standing offer. We note that B has
replied to A’s email and just asked for further information. This reply will not be considered as an offer.
However, A’s email reply where he has offered distributorship for 10% commission to B will clearly be
considered as an offer. Therefore, the offeror will be A, offeree will be B and the standing offer will be
the content of A’s email.
Box 4: lock the date and time of Acceptance
The next issue is to determine whether B has accepted A’s offer or not and if yes, what is the time of
acceptance. The general rule for acceptance in bilateral contracts is that acceptance has to be
communicated by the offeree to the offeror (Entores v. Miles), it can also be by conduct (Brogden v.
MR), but cannot be silence (Felthouse v. Bindley). We note that the offer specifies that B’s silence will be
acceptance, this is invalid as per the general rule. However, on 7th May, B has posted a letter to A
accepting the offer. In this regard, we shall apply the postal rule which states that postal acceptance will
be valid at the time of posting as opposed to when the post is communicated (Adams v. Lindsay) (Dunlop
v. Higgins). Therefore, acceptance should be valid at the time B posted the letter to A. However, it was
held in (Henthron v. Fraser) that postal rule does not apply if post was not a reasonable mode of
acceptance based on the context. In our case, A and B were communicating through emails and suddenly
posting a letter of acceptance, in our view, is unreasonable. Therefore, the postal rule will not apply and
as per the general rule of acceptance, a valid acceptance will occur on May 16 th when the letter is read by
A.
Box 5: Withdrawal before or after accetpancec
The final issue is to now determine whether A has successfully withdrawn his offer through the phone
call to B before the actual acceptance on May 16. The general rule for withdrawing an offer is that it has
to be communicated before acceptance (Payne v. Cave) and such communication can also come from a
third party (Dickensson v. Dodds). In our case, A has clearly communicated the withdrawal to B on May
15th which is before the acceptance on May 16th. Therefore, the withdrawal will be valid and there will be
no contract between A and B. Hence, A can freely form a contract with C which he has already done for
the sole distributorship.
Q5-
Jemima wants to rent a room in her house and puts an advertisement in the local newspaper stating
that “it is guaranteed that the best offer above £500 per month will secure the room”. Anna and
Beatrice visit the property on 1st March. Anna is delighted by the size of the room and its views
across the park. As she is leaving the house, she shouts out to Jemima that she “adores the room
and wants to offer her £550 per month”. Unfortunately, her words are drowned out by the noisy
traffic outside the house and Jemima does not hear. Beatrice is undecided about the property and
that afternoon sends Jemima an email stating that if the rental payment includes electricity usage
she would consider paying £560. Jemima replies that electricity is included in the monthly rental.
Beatrice then sends an email to Jemina stating “I hereby offer to pay you £560 for the room”
Jemina reads the email and sends her acceptance on March 3rd. However, Beatrice has not yet read
the email and Jemina changes her mind and calls and tells Beatrice that she does not want to rent
out the room anymore. Advise the parties
Summary of facts
We understand that Jemima wants to rent her room and has put an advertisement for it and Anna and
Beatrice have responded and started discussing the possibility of renting the room. Our primary issue is to
determine whether a valid contract has been formed or not. In order to form a contract, there has to be an
offer, acceptance, consideration, intentions to create legal relations and capacity.
Box 1: Unilateral or Bilateral
To see if there is a contract, the first issue is to determine whether the nature of any contract formed will
be unilateral or bilateral. Unilateral contract is where one party takes responsibility of performance and
acceptance is only by conduct (Carill v. Carbolic) and bilateral contract is where both parties take
responsibility of performance. In our case, the rental contract will involve both parties to take
responsibility of giving the room and paying rent respectively and acceptance can also be by
communication. Therefore, any contract formed will be bilateral.
Box 2: Initial Communication
Since there will be a bilateral contract, the next issue is to determine whether the initial communication
by Jemina through her advertisement will be considered as an offer or invitation to treat (ITT). An offer is
inviting another party to enter into a binding contract (Storer v. MCC) whereas an ITT is inviting another
to make an offer (Gibson v. MCC). The general rule for advertisement is that they will be considered as
ITT (Patridge v. Crittenden). In our case, Jemina's advertisement will be considered as an ITT.
Box 3: Identify the offeror and offeree
Since the advert is an ITT, we shall now discuss the case of Anna and Beatrice separately:
(a) Anna
As regards Anna, we see that she has visited the room and has shouted to Jemina that she wants to take it
for 550 pounds. However, Jemina does not hear this. Although, Anna's communication would be
considered as an offer, it was not communicated to Jemina therefore there is no standing offer and
consequently no contract has been formed with Anna.

(b) Beatrice
As regards Beatrice, she has emailed asking if electricity is included and if yes, she will “consider”
paying 560 pounds. This cannot be an offer as she has used the words consider which is not certain.
Jemima has replied with a confirmation on electricity usage which is also a clarification and currently
there is no offer. However, Beatrice has sent another email clearly offering to take the room on rent for
560 pounds. Therefore, the offeror shall be Beatrice, the offeree shall be Jemima and the standing offer
shall be of 560 pounds.
Box 4: Lock date and time of Acceptance
We now need to determine whether Jemima has accepted the offer or not and what is the time of such
acceptance. The general rule of acceptance is that it has to be communicated by the offeree (Entores v.
Miles), it can be by conduct (Brogden) but cannot be silence (Felthouse v. Bindley). In our case,
acceptance has been done by email and it will only be valid when Jemima reads the email as this is the
point of communication.
Box 5: Withdrawal
The final issue is to determine if the acceptance has been withdrawn before the actual acceptance which
will be when Beatrice reads Jemima’s email. The general rule for withdrawal of acceptance is not defined
under English Law but reliance can be placed on (Dunmore v. Alexander) (Australian case) which states
that acceptance can be withdrawn if withdrawal is communicated through a faster medium and before the
actual acceptance. In our case, Jemima has clearly called and communicated the withdrawal before
Beatruce has read the acceptance in email. Therefore withdrawal will be valid and there will be no
contract.
Q6-
The Head of the School of Textiles at Lastchance University thinks students do not take enough
exercise. On Monday he announces over Campus Radio that he will donate a signed copy of his
latest book to any student who cycles from the University to the nearby Museum of Basket Weaving
before the weekend. On Tuesday he regrets his rash offer and puts up posters in the School
retracting his offer. On Thursday he announces the offer is withdrawn over Campus Radio. Advise
the following students: a) Devi, who cycled to the Museum on Monday afternoon but was not aware
of the offer until she arrived. B) Ellis, who, having heard the offer on campus radio on Monday,
trained all day Tuesday and cycled to the Museum on Wednesday. C) Fred, who was told by
another student about the withdrawal of the offer just as he was about to set out on Wednesday. He
said ‘they can’t do that’ and completed the ride. D) Gina, who, having heard of the offer on
Monday, was too drunk on Tuesday and Wednesday to go to the campus but who set out on her
bike on Thursday. She was half way to the Museum when she heard the withdrawal over the radio.
E) As (d) but the prize offered was £5,000. (2016

Summary the facts and identify the primary issue

We understand that LastChance University (the “LC”) has announced on the campus radio that they
would provide a book to any student who cycles from LC to the nearby museum. We further understand
that certain parties have cycled to the museum and we need to determine whether they can claim the book
from LC. In order to claim the book, a valid contract needs to be created between LC and the claimant. To
create a valid contract, there has to be a valid offer which has been accepted. In addition, there has to be
consideration, capacity to enter into a contract and intentions to create legal relations.
In order to determine whether there is a contract between the parties, the first issue is to see whether the
contract that may be formed will be unilateral (i.e. where one party takes responsibility of performance
(Carlil v. Carbolic) (Errington v. Errington)) or bilateral (i.e. where both parties take responsibility
simultaneously on offer and acceptance). In our case, as LC has already taken responsibility upfront of
giving the book to any person who cycles shows that only the first party has taken responsible at the
outset and therefore if a contract is made, it will be unilateral.
Since there are multiple parties, we shall first set out the law of offer and acceptance in unilateral
contracts which will be applicable in all situations. We note that in unilateral contracts there is a direct
offer (i.e. a specific invitation to enter into a binding contract) and acceptance is only by conduct and
upon full performance by the offeree (Daulia case) i.e. cycling from LC to the museum. We shall discuss
eaxh party liability separately
(a) Devi (the “D”)
We note that D has completed performance by cycling to the museum from LC. However, as a general
principle of law set out in the (William v. Carwadine) an offer can only be accepted if the offeree has
knowledge of the same at the time of acceptance. If such knowledge come afterwards, the offer cannot be
deemed accepted notwithstanding completion of the performance. Hence, there is no contract between LC
and D and D is not entitled to the book. I
 (b) Ellis (the “E”)
We note that E has knowledge of the offer and has completed performance on Wednesday i.e. cycled to
the museum from LC. However, the issue is that LC put up posters on Tuesday on the campus
withdrawing their offer. If such withdrawal of offer was valid on Tuesday, then there was no offer to
acceptance on Wednesday on part of E. Accordingly, if the offer was not withdrawn then there will be
valid acceptance by conduct and a contract will be formed. We would like to highlight that there are no
judicial pronoucements in the UK courts which specify the rules in respect of withdrawal of offer in a
unilateral contract. However, reliance will be placed on the case of Sheuy v. USA (an American case)
which will have strong persuasive value in view of its sound logic. The principle introduced in the case
was that unilateral offers to the world at large can be withdrawn if the withdrawal is given through the
same medium as the offer. In such case, even if a person has not been communicated the withdrawal, will
not be able to accept as the offer will be withdrawn for everyone. Relying on this, since the offer was
given through the Campus Radio, withdrawal through posters on campus would not be the same medium
and therefore the withdrawal on Tuesday would not be valid. Hence, as E completed performance on
Wednesday, he will have accepted the offer. The context is commercial and therefore intentions to create
legal relations will be presumed, both parties have the capacity to enter into a contract and there is valid
consideration in the form of E undertaking a physical activity and the LC providing a book in return.
Hence, LC will have to give the book to E.

(c)Fred (the “F”)

We understand that F has completed performance before the official withdrawal which came on Thursday
(based on our discussion in (b) above, the same medium through which withdrawal would be valid is the
Campus Radio and this was done on Thursday). We note that although there is no case law on withdrawal
of unilateral contracts, logic dictates that if a person has procured knowledge of the withdrawal from any
medium then it would be unjust to ignore such knowledge, complete the performance and demand the
reward. The rule in Sheuy was purely for withdrawal the offer for everyone. However, if a person has
gotten communication of withdrawal before the official withdrawal through the same medium, we believe
that the courts would hold the offer withdrawn as it does not make sense that a person forcefully
completes performance even with the knowledge that the offeror has withdrawn the offer. The rules of
withdrawal in bilateral contracts can also assistus in our reasoning although not applicable in the context
as in bilateral contracts, withdrawal of offer is valid if communicated before acceptance and
communication can also come from a third party (Dickensonv. Dodds). Relying on thit as persuasive
authority, we conclude that the offer for F only due to the third party communication was withdrawn and
therefore there will be no contract

(d)Gina (the “G”)

We understand that G was halfway through to the museum and was communicated the withdrawal on the
campus radio. The issue is to determine whether the offer will be withdrawn for her or not. Relying on the
case of (Errington v. Errington), unilateral offers cannot be withdrawn if part performance commences. In
our case, as she had already begun cycling and was halfway through, we can conclude that this would be
considered as part performance and therefore the offer will be withdrawn for everyone except G.
Assuming that after hearing the radio announcement, she completed performance by cycling to the
museum, a contract will be formed as all elements (abovementioned) are present. LC will then be
obligated to give the book.
Alternate Scenario for G
In respect of the alternate scenario where G has heard the withdrawal announcement and the prize is 5000
pounds, reliance will be placed on the case of (Luxor v. Cooper) which states and in such certain
situations where the reward is substantial and the performance is trivial then offer can be withdrawn even
after part performance commences. Accordingly, even if G completes the cycle ride to the museum offer
will be withdrawn and there will be no contract.
QUESTION
Jemima wants to rent a room in her house and puts an advertisement in the local newspaper stating that “it
is guaranteed that the best offer above £500 per month will secure the room”. Anna and Beatrice visit the
property on 1st March. Anna is delighted by the size of the room and its views across the park. As she is
leaving the house, she shouts out to Jemima that she “adores the room and wants to offer her £550 per
month”. Unfortunately, her words are drowned out by the noisy traffic outside the house and Jemima does
not hear. Beatrice is undecided about the property and that afternoon sends Jemima an email stating that if
the rental payment includes electricity usage she would consider paying £560. Jemima replies that
electricity is included in the monthly rental. Beatrice then sends an email to Jemima stating “I hereby
offer to pay you £560 for the room”. Jemima reads the email and sends her acceptance on March 3 rd.
However, Beatrice has not yet read the email and Jemima changes her mind and calls and tells Beatrice
that she does not want to rent out the room anymore. Advise the parties.
ANSWER
Summary of facts
We understand that Jemima wants to rent her room and has put an advertisement for it and Anna and
Beatrice have responded and started discussing the possibility of renting the room. Our primary issue is to
determine whether a valid contract has been formed or not. In order to form a contract, there has to be an
offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations and capacity
Box 1: Unilateral or Bilateral
To see if there is a contract the first issue is to determine whether the nature of any contract formed will
be unilateral or bilateral. Unilateral contract is where one party takes responsibility of performance and
acceptance is only by conduct (Carlill v Carbolic) and bilateral contract is here both parties takes
responsibility of performance. In our case the rental case will involve both parties to take responsibility of
giving the room and paying rent respectively and acceptance can also be by communication therefore any
contract formed will be bilateral
Box 2: Initial communication is offer or ITT
Since there will be a bilateral contract the next issue is to determine that the initial communication by
Jemima through her advertisement will be considered an offer or ITT. An offer is inviting another party to
enter into a binding contract (Storer v MCC) whereas ITT is inviting another to make an offer Gibson v
MCC). The general rule for advertisement is that they will be considered as ITT (Patridge v
Crittenden). In our case, Jemima’s advertisement will be considered as an ITT.
Box 3: Identify the offeror and offeree
Since the advert in an ITT, we shall now discuss the case of Anna and Beatrice separately:
(a) Anna
As regards Anna, we see that she has visited the room and has shouted to Jemima that she
wants to take it for $550. However, Jemima does not hear this. Although, Anna’s
 communication would be considered as an offer, it was not communicated to Jemima
therefore there is no standing offer and consequently no contract has been formed with Anna

(b) Beatrice
This cannot be used as an offer as she has used the word consider which is not certain.
Jemima has replied with a confirmation on electricity usage which is also a clarification and
currently there is no offer, However, Beatrice has sent another email clearly offering to take
the room for $550. Therefore, the offeror shall be Beatrice, the offeree shall be Jemima and
the standing offer shall be of $550.
Box 4: Lock date and time of Acceptance
We now need to determine whether Jemima has accepted the offer or not and what is the time of such
acceptance, the general rule of acceptance is that it has to be communicated by the offeree Entores v
Miles), it can be by conduct (Brogden) but cannot be silence (Felthouse v Bindley). In our case,
acceptance has been done by email and it will only be valid when Jemima reads the email as this is the
point of communication.
Box 5: Withdrawal
The final issue is to determine if the acceptance has been withdrawn before the actual acceptance which
will be when Beatrice reads Jemima’s email. The general rule for withdrawal of acceptance is not under
English law but reliance can be placed on Dunmore v Alexander (Australian case) which states that
acceptance can be withdrawn if withdrawal is communicated through a faster medium and before the
actual acceptance. In our case Jemima has clearly called and communicated the withdrawal before
Beatrice has read the acceptance email. Therefore, withdrawal will be valid and there will be no contract