Judgement o Decided against the plaintiff so the following is dictum not ratio

Judgement o decided against the plaintiff so the

This preview shows page 18 - 20 out of 26 pages.

Judgement: o Decided against the plaintiff so the following is dictum not ratio** o Goff LJ o The concept of unilateral or ‘if contract; is somewhat anomalous, because it is clear that, at all events until the offeree starts to perform the condition, there is no contract at all, but merely an offer which the offeror is free to revoke o In this case, the P had fully performed and satisfied the condition when they presented themselves at the time and place as appointed with a banker’s draft for the deposit o Considered the question of when the offeror in a unilateral contract is entitled to withdraw that offer. He started by confirming that in general the offeror cannot be bound to a unilateral contract until the acceptor has provided full performance of the condition imposed. That general is, however, subject to an important qualification, namely:
Image of page 18
…that there must be an implied obligation on the part of the offeror not to prevent the condition becoming satisfied, which obligation it seems to me must arise as soon as the offeree starts to perform. Until then, the offeror can revoke the whole thing, but once the offeree has embarked on performance it is too late for the offeror to revoke his offer o The above echoed Errington v Errington, which one of the views state that the commencement of performance might give rise to an implied obligation binding upon the offeror not to revoke The offer of a unilateral contract may bot be revoked when the offeree starts to perform the task, this is mostly because the offeree may well have legitimate expectations that the offer will not be revoked – not least because of the substantial degree of detrimental reliance he may have incurred Is the implied obligation not to prevent the condition becoming satisfied not consistent with Luxor Copper? Well but the terms allow him to do so Shuey v United States (1875) Facts: o The Secretary of War published in the public newspapers and issued a proclamation, announcing that liberal rewards will be paid for nay information that leads to the arrest of certain named criminals on April 20. On Nov 24, the President issued an order revoking the offer of the reward. In subsequent year, the claimant discovered and identified one of the named persons, and informed the authorities. He was at all times, unaware that the offer of the reward had been revoked. Issue: o Is there a binding contract between the D and the P? Is the revocation of the offer valid? Decision: o An offer made by advertisement in a newspaper could be revoked by a similar advertisements even though the second advertisement were not read by some offeree. The offer of the reward not having been made to him directly, but by means of a published proclamation, he should have known that it could be revoked in the manner in which it was made But is this fair, if between Apr and Nov, the P had already started doing investigation/searching about where the criminal is?
Image of page 19
Image of page 20

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 26 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture