Alexander Contract Case

In Order for a contract to be made valid, there must be an agreement between the
contracting parties. This agreement must constitute an offer and acceptance, and there must also
be a legal intention that should be intended, and the offer and acceptance must be communicated
to the offeree and offeror. In this case, the claimants, Beatrice, Charles, David, and Ethel would
feel entitled to claim the $1000 reward, if not claiming the breach of contract by Alexander. All
four individual cases would need to be examined in order to examine the validity of their
contract, before claiming against a breach of contract by Alexander. In order for a contract to be
valid, there must have been an offer, acceptance, consideration and legal intention in regards to
each particular case.
In Alexanders case, he placed his advertisement in the local newspaper, therefore making
an offer to the world, specifically to anyone who could return the rat, thereby performing the act
to create an exchange for the reward of $1000. For example, in the case of Carlil v. Carbolic
Smoke Ball Company, 100 pounds would be paid by the smoke ball company if any person
contracted the influenza after a given time. So, therefore Alexanders advertisement in the
newspaper would be deemed a valid unilateral offer. To continue the contracts validity, there
must be an acceptance, which would be recognized by the performance of the act, which is to
find and return the rats to Alexander. The advertisement (offer) was communicated to the four
individuals who found the rats, but performed different instructions in order to complete the
acceptance.
Beatrice did find the rat, having an intention to return it to Alexander, but her intention is
irrelevant, as the rat was still not returned to Alexander, which was the purpose of the offer. The
rat would still be missing and this would cancel out the acceptance process by Beatrice, who
failed to perform the act to return the rats. Therefore, Beatrice would not be entitled for the
reward of $1000. Charles, on the other hand, found and returned the rat to Alexander, which
confirms his acceptance of the offer and entitlement of the reward. The reward should be issued,
despite revocation, for example in Errington v. Errington, the wife had continued paying the
mortgage, and was in the process of accepting the offer, and therefore the mother was stopped
from revoking the offer. Similarly, as Charles had already completed the acceptance process of
returning the rat, Alexanders revocation would be invalid, therefore Charles would be rewarded.
It can also be argued that the method of communication for revocation was different. If the
method was the same, it would reach the same audience, but the original offer was done by an
advertisement in the local newspaper, and the revocation was done by the issuing of leaflets,
which would limit the audience to select individuals rather than the world. For example, in
Shuey v. United States, the offeror was responsible for proper revocation by a similar method to
reach the same audience. Therefore in Alexanders cases, the leaflets would be an improper form
of communication.

David returned a dead rat to Alexander. David did accept the offer by engaging in finding
and returning the rat, whether dead or alive. David found the rat, and Alexanders advertisement
didnt specify the state the rat should be returned in. Nevertheless, in Alexanders case, the
advertisement would imply that the rats should be found alive, as he intended to bring back the
dance group together. Having a dance group consisting of rats also implies that Alexander would
use it as a form entertainment, giving him enough reason to offer a reward of $1000 for his rats
to be found alive. Therefore, David wouldnt be entitled to a reward, despite returning the rat.
Ethel, who is Alexanders sister, also engaged in accepting the offer, as she returned the
rat to Alexander, with the reward in mind. But as a contract requires a legal intention, her
domestic/family relationship would propose no legal intention. Therefore the situation would
have to be looked at. For example, in Balfour v. Balfour, the court didnt enforce the agreement
between the individuals due to the domestic relationship, despite both parties having legal
intentions. On Ethels side, she accepted the offer, expecting a reward, and therefore having legal
intentions. Likewise, Alexanders advertisement was aimed at anybody in the world who could
return his rats, and it didnt specify who should or shouldnt return his rats, ex. Sister. Ethel did
find and return the rat, which then would entitle Ethel for the $1000 reward.
In conclusion, based on the elements of a contract, Charles, and Ethel would be entitled
for the reward, and Beatrice and David would be excluded as they failed to complete the
acceptance of the offer by returning the rat alive. Ethel would also be subject to the domestic
relationship held with Alexander, but should most likely be rewarded considering the legal
intentions.