The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Contract Law - Unilateral contracts

Before I type I should say that I am well aware how basic this question is, but contract law is not my forté unfortunately and its driving me nuts.

I think the following is a unilateral contract but if it is then the rest of the question doesn't really make sense as it goes on to look at different types of acceptance, so, I'm guessing I'm missing something horribly obvious. Can someone please point out where I am going wrong by telling me why it isn't unilateral.

Ralph owns a messenger business which is expanding and urgently needs new staff. He places an advertisment in the local press.."Local firm desperately requires new staff. The first person over 18 to write or phone will be offered a part-time job as a motor cycle dispatch rider, £7.00 per hour, guaranteed 20 hours a week".

Thanks
I'm not sure why being a unilateral offer/contract would mean that acceptance is irrelevant. Unilateral means that only one party has an obligation to do anything: the offeror. However, he is only obliged to make payment if his offer has been accepted. Of course if there is no acceptance he is not obliged to pay.
Reply 2
Avatar for lamchop
lamchop
OP
Not that it doesn't matter in entirety, sorry I wasn't clear. It goes on to raise issues about communication of acceptance and I was thinking in a unilateral contract acceptance is signified by performance i.e. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball co, so postal or electronic comms rule is irrelevant?
Original post by lamchop
Not that it doesn't matter in entirety, sorry I wasn't clear. It goes on to raise issues about communication of acceptance and I was thinking in a unilateral contract acceptance is signified by performance i.e. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball co, so postal or electronic comms rule is irrelevant?


Acceptance by performance isn't a concept restricted to unilateral offers. You can accept offers and enter into bilateral contracts by performance generally.

The key legal concept is that the offer has to be accepted for there to be a contract. You would normally accept by performance in a situation like Carlil, however you may accept by communication if this is compliant with the terms of the offer.

In any event, the offer in this case seems to require communication of acceptance. If people are communicating their acceptance, postal rule is relevant.

My view is that worrying about a distinction between unilateral and bilateral contracts is not helpful. The legal concepts involved are the same, they are just descriptive terms: there is a contract where there is offer and acceptance, consideration and intent.
Reply 4
Avatar for Clip
Clip
19
Not to be clouding the central issue here (unless you are desperate for those bonus points), but to me, Ralph sounds dangerously close to holding a lottery rather than a job offer, under the Gambling Act 2005.

He's essentially giving away a job as a prize since the only qualifying criteria are that you are the first person to contact him - and you'd then get a job and guaranteed pay. There's no interview, no screening and no mention of training (given that the job is for a motorbike courier).
Reply 5
Avatar for cliffg
cliffg
7
PM'd you something that should help.
Reply 6
Avatar for chalks
chalks
12
Original post by Clip
Not to be clouding the central issue here (unless you are desperate for those bonus points), but to me, Ralph sounds dangerously close to holding a lottery rather than a job offer, under the Gambling Act 2005.

He's essentially giving away a job as a prize since the only qualifying criteria are that you are the first person to contact him - and you'd then get a job and guaranteed pay. There's no interview, no screening and no mention of training (given that the job is for a motorbike courier).


Interesting, but don't think that it would fall foul of s.6 (gaming) because:

(a) this wouldn't be regarded as a game of chance; nor
(b) would the job be regarded as "money" or "money's worth"

Think s.14 (lotteries) is limited to circumstances where you pay to play.
Reply 7
Avatar for Clip
Clip
19
Original post by chalks
Interesting, but don't think that it would fall foul of s.6 (gaming) because:

(a) this wouldn't be regarded as a game of chance; nor
(b) would the job be regarded as "money" or "money's worth"

Think s.14 (lotteries) is limited to circumstances where you pay to play.


**apologies for de-railing OP - but I can't help myself - law students, eh?**

Sorry,my bad not a lottery - but I think it might be a game of chance, distinct from a s.339 "Prize Competition".

I'm not sure that this isn't a game of chance. Certainly, little or no skill is required to pick up the phone, email or write a letter. How distinct is this from a TV or radio competition where the first or xth caller wins a prize?

You're right - the part-time job as a motorbike courier might not really sound like prima facie money or money's worth, but surely a contract of employment can be. If a section of something like X-factor included a straight luck-only draw for a place in a new boyband - that sounds very much like money's worth. Just because a part time job (with guaranteed hours, no less) doesn't sound as amazing as being a popstar, shouldn't disqualify this from being a game of chance.

In our own terms, if a law firm offered a training contract as a prize to the 100th caller (with no entry fee) I cannot see how that would not be a game of chance, as distinct from a prize competition - normally denoted by a silly question as the "skill" factor.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you