Dani_123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Hi, could someone please help me to slove this with relevant case.

Gordon is sitting with a group of his friends outside a public house in a harbour. He says that he will give £100 to anyone who can swim across the harbour. Gordon puts that sum of money on the table to show the seriousness of his challenge. Chloe is not with Gordon's group but is sitting at the table next to Gordon. She hears the promise but does not say anything. Suddenly a child falls into the water from the other side of the harbour. Chloe dives into the water and begins to swim to the child’s rescue. As Chloe approached the child, Gordon shouts out: 'Don't think you are going to get my £100, because I am withdrawing my offer'. Chloe nonetheless rescues the child and climbs out on to the other side of the harbour.

Required:
Explain, with reasons, whether Chloe can claim the £100 from Gordon under the law of contract
0
reply
Ciel.
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
(Original post by Dani_123)
Hi, could someone please help me to slove this with relevant case.

Gordon is sitting with a group of his friends outside a public house in a harbour. He says that he will give £100 to anyone who can swim across the harbour. Gordon puts that sum of money on the table to show the seriousness of his challenge. Chloe is not with Gordon's group but is sitting at the table next to Gordon. She hears the promise but does not say anything. Suddenly a child falls into the water from the other side of the harbour. Chloe dives into the water and begins to swim to the child’s rescue. As Chloe approached the child, Gordon shouts out: 'Don't think you are going to get my £100, because I am withdrawing my offer'. Chloe nonetheless rescues the child and climbs out on to the other side of the harbour.

Required:
Explain, with reasons, whether Chloe can claim the £100 from Gordon under the law of contract
Gordon is such an ******* :laugh: As an ex trainee solicitor I should know this but I can't remember a ****ing thing. Contract law module was like in year 1. But hmmm... I think there was no intention here. On Chloe's part.
0
reply
Dani_123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#3
Thank you for your reply. Do you have any cases saying intention is relevant In unilateral offer. Also Gordon said it "I am withdrawing my offer" this states that he knew chole was part of the contact so therefore he should give the money to chole. Please correct me if I am wrong?
0
reply
hno
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
I think Chole can claim the $100 because she started the action (swimming) while Gordon's offer was still standing.

Good Luck!
0
reply
TheLawLlama
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by Dani_123)
Hi, could someone please help me to slove this with relevant case.

Gordon is sitting with a group of his friends outside a public house in a harbour. He says that he will give £100 to anyone who can swim across the harbour. Gordon puts that sum of money on the table to show the seriousness of his challenge. Chloe is not with Gordon's group but is sitting at the table next to Gordon. She hears the promise but does not say anything. Suddenly a child falls into the water from the other side of the harbour. Chloe dives into the water and begins to swim to the child’s rescue. As Chloe approached the child, Gordon shouts out: 'Don't think you are going to get my £100, because I am withdrawing my offer'. Chloe nonetheless rescues the child and climbs out on to the other side of the harbour.

Required:
Explain, with reasons, whether Chloe can claim the £100 from Gordon under the law of contract

Hi,

"Gordon is sitting with a group of his friends outside a public house in a harbour. He says that he will give £100 to anyone who can swim across the harbour. Gordon puts that sum of money on the table to show the seriousness of his challenge."

Firstly, we must determine what type of contract is present. This is clearly a unilateral contract as there is only one party (Gordon) and acceptance will only occur once the condition (swimming across the harbour) has been satisfied. The unilateral contract is clearly open to "anyone" as Gordon said he would give the money to "anyone" who completed the swim across the harbour.

"Chloe is not with Gordon's group but is sitting at the table next to Gordon. She hears the promise but does not say anything."

In unilateral contracts, the requirement that acceptance be communicated to the offeror is waived. So the fact Chloe does not expressly accept the contract provides Gordon with no defence against paying Chloe the money. Also note the doctrine of objectivity, which means the law is not concerned with what is in your mind, but has actually been said or done. So the fact that Gordon may have meant for the unilateral contract to have only been for his friends, the fact that he said it was open to "anyone" is the crucial point and, therefore, Gordon's subjective thoughts do not matter. For example, in Crest Nicholson Ltd v Akaria Investments Ltd [2010] Sir John Chadwick said that “the question is ‘what did the parties intend by the words used in the agreement which they made’” i.e. the only relevant thing for the court is what has actually been said/done and not what was in the head of either party.

"Suddenly a child falls into the water from the other side of the harbour. Chloe dives into the water and begins to swim to the child’s rescue."

Chloe is completing the swim across the harbour to save a life and not for the £100 reward; so we must determine whether or not this precludes her from the reward. It is likely that, despite this, Chloe will still be entitled to the reward. For example, in Gibbons v Proctor, someone was entitled to the reward from a unilateral offer despite the fact they had no awareness the offer existed when they completed the necessary conditions to receive that award!

With unilateral contracts acceptance is always made by conduct - see the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball for example (good notes here: digestiblenotes.com/lawnotes/contractlaw/cases/agreement/forming_agreement.php#carlill). So, Chloe's swimming of the harbour is her fulfilling the acceptance of the unilateral offer.

"As Chloe approached the child, Gordon shouts out: 'Don't think you are going to get my £100, because I am withdrawing my offer'. Chloe nonetheless rescues the child and climbs out on to the other side of the harbour."

Here, Gordon is attempting to terminate the offer prior to Chloe completing the swim across the harbour. The general rule is that you can withdraw an offer at any time before it is accepted. However, with unilateral contracts you cannot revoke the offer once performance by the accepting party had started; so the fact that Chloe had already begun swimming (i.e. performance had already started), Gordon's attempt to terminate the offer fail. In Errington v Errington, it was ruled that once performance has started, there was a collateral contract keeping the contract open to its beneficiaries. Later, in Dahlia v Four Millbank Nominees, it was also ruled that unilateral offers cannot be revoked once performance has started.

So, Gordon will have to pay Chloe the £100.

There are some good notes at digestiblenotes.com on contract law, which you should check out

Good luck and let me know if you need any more help!

Llama :llama:
2
reply
jessjanellbhons1
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
Llama's response is pretty good, but I scored a first and my thesis was in contracts after all, so I can supplement Llama's answer with this tidbit:

"Gordon puts that sum of money on the table to show the seriousness of his challenge"

This is highly analogous to Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball, where the newspaper advertisement stated: "£1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter."

This shows that there was an intention on Gordon's part to create legal relations.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
The other two posters have dealt with offer and acceptance, even though the PQ is stated to be open to the law of contract as a whole.

Contract law is built upon offer and acceptance in addition to intention to create legal relations, and in addition to the requirement for consideration.

A) By slamming down a note on the table, was he doing enough to convey a serious intention to form a legally binding agreement?

B) By offering the challenge, did the promisor gain any benefit from the performance of the supposed contract? Did the promisee incur any detriment stemming from the contract?

There is another thing to consider. This offer took place outside a pub. How intoxicated was the promisor? Was he so drunk that anyone who heard the offer would have known the promisor could not be serious or held to his word?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top

University open days

  • Durham University
    Pre-Application Open Days Undergraduate
    Sat, 21 Sep '19
  • University of Exeter
    Undergraduate Open Day - Penryn Campus Undergraduate
    Sat, 21 Sep '19
  • Loughborough University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 21 Sep '19

Are you attending a Global Climate Strike?

Yes, I'm striking (4)
7.14%
No, but I wanted to/I support the cause (31)
55.36%
No (21)
37.5%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed