Contract Law Case: Charlie vs. Best Bargain

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Issue
Rule of Law
Analysis
Conclusion
Work Cited

Issue

Will Charlie prevail against Best Bargain Stores after he was denied a General Electric Smart Front Load Washer for $1.00 that was advertised?

Rule of Law

Advertisements made to the public normally do not amount to an offer but are considered as an invitation to create an offer. However, if the advertisement is specific and directly promises a reward when a person fulfills some terms, it constitutes an offer. An offer can be revoked any time before it is accepted as it was in Routledge v. Grant (1828). In unilateral contracts, there is no pressure put on the party performing the action.

Analysis

The ruling in Gunthing v. Lynn (1831) reveals that a contract cannot exist when the offer is evidently unclear (Beale et al. 17). Best Bargain Stores clearly published an advertisement where they indicated that they would be rewarding customers with General Electric Smart Front Load Washer on a first-come basis. The stores advertisement presented an offer and promised a reward for anyone who fulfils the terms. Charlie will prevail in this case against Best Bargain Stores since he realized all the conditions inherent in the advertisement. The case of Charlie v. Best Bargain Stores is an instance of a unilateral contract. The store promised a $1 price to the first customers that came that Saturday morning before 9 is.

In a unilateral contract, the offeror promises a reward when the offeree fulfils an act and the right to communicate acceptance is surrendered. Best Bargain Stores advertisement was an offer to enter into a unilateral contract, and one of its terms was not to bring it along during the purchase. There was no need or space to negotiate since the offeror and the offeree were clear on what their contractual responsibilities were. Thus, if the offeree fulfills all the specific terms of the advertisement, he or she is legally entitled to the reward indicated. In Routledge v. Grant (1828), the offeror revoked his offer before the time he had set for the offeree elapsed (Beale et al. 23).

In unilateral contracts, there is no pressure put on the party performing the action. In the case in question, Best Bargain Stores revoked the offer when Charlie had already commenced the performance. He completed his part of the bargain of $1.00 bill, which signified acceptance. Furthermore, an intention to withdraw an advertisement does not constitute withdrawal in itself. For revocation to take effect, the offeree has to receive it. The advertisement that Best Bargain Stores published was to the public, and similar publicity has to be assigned to the revocation as to the advert. When the same publicity is provided to the revocation as to the offer, it is terminated irrespective of whether someone saw it or not. The major task is to determine when acceptance happened so that the offeree knows when he or she is needed to complete the contract and due for the reward.

Conclusion

Best Bargain Stores is liable since they made an offer that was accepted by the offeree, which constituted a valid contract.

Work Cited

Beale, Hugh, et al. Cases, Materials and Text on Contract Law. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019.

Click Here To Order Now!

Contract Law Case: Charlie vs. Best Bargain

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)