Introduction

In order for one to decide whether a contract is formed between two

parties, there are certain requirements to be fulfilled. However, just
because the parties have made an agreement, this does not necessarily
mean that it is legally enforceable. In particular courts will look for an offer
by one party that has been unequivocally accepted by the other party.1
In the case of Eurymedon, there is a clear breakdown on what is the
essential requirement to form a valid and binding contract. As far as
Contract Law is concern, the elements which vital and significant to it
formation

would

be

element

such

as

an

offer,

an

acceptance,

consideration and the intention to create legal relations. The courts will
consider the contract valid when all four parts of a valid contract have
been established.
The gist and crux of this question falls on the formation of contract.
The parties that we are required to advise is David on his contractual
liability with the other parties, whether he is bound by his promise to pay
the reward of 1000 to his offeree; Peter, Hannah, Jonathan, Richard and
Sheeba who safely return his cats.
Davids offer
The courts have traditionally drawn a distinction between an offer
and an invitation to treat. Sometimes a person will wish simply to open
negotiations, rather than making an offer, which will lead immediately to a
1 Reference to: R Stone, The Modern Law of Contract (8th edn RoutledgeCavendish, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2009) 3
1

contract on acceptance.2 The courts refer to such a preliminary

communication as an invitation to treat.3
In this question, the offeror, David who has three pairs of cats which
he trains for stage performance had eventually escaped when he was
conducting a rehearsal for the upcoming competition due to a sudden
thunder. Therefore, to enable him to find his lost cats, he placed an
advertisement in the Daily Bungle, which is probably a local newspaper,
offering a reward for the safe return of his award winning Calico Tortoise
Shell cats. To decide whether the advertisement which David placed would
be considered as an offer or an invitation to treat would depend on
whether it is an advertisement for a unilateral contract or bilateral
contract. According to the information stated, it should be a unilateral
contract as the advertisement David placed is a promise for an act and he
is the only party who makes the promise.
The general rule applicable to advertisement is an invitation to
treat. In the case of Patridge v Crittenden, the court held that the
defendant was not making an offer but an invitation to treat as the
advertisement was the starting point of any negotiations that would occur
once a person reading it responded with their enquiry about the
purchase.4 Therefore, Davids advertisement would be an invitation to

2 Reference to: C Turner, Unlocking Contract Law (3rd edn Routledge, Oxon 2013)
13
3 Reference to: E McKendrick, Contract Law Text, Cases, And Materials (4th edn
OUP, Oxford 2010) 54
4 Reference to: Patridge v Crittenden [1986] 1 WLR 1204
2

treat if he isnt offering any reward. This is because the exception to the
general rule is that advertisements for unilateral contracts, such as those
offering a reward for a certain performance, which is a promise for an act
are generally considered by the courts to be offers. In the case of Carlill v
Carbolic Smoke Balls, the court ruled that the advertisement in this case
should be treated as an offer as contracts like that are usually accepted
without further negotiations and it was held to be an offer to the world at
large and there will be acceptance when a person performed the
condition.5 The situation of David is similar to the facts in the case of
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Balls as he stated in his advertisement that there
will be a reward of 1000 for the safe return of his cats and this is a
promise for an act. Therefore, the advertisement which David made would
be an offer instead of invitation to treat as it demonstrates an intention to
be bound and invites no further negotiations.

David against Peter

The first issue which arises between David and Peter is that whether
Peter accepted the offer made by David. Peter, Davids friend found
Nimmie in the park when he was jogging, he decided to take it back home
and keep it for few days before he takes it to Davids house. Peter would
have noticed Davids advertisement as he wrote a note to David stating
that 1000 is not sufficient and he wants 1500 instead after he found
Nimmie. In the case of Hyde v Wrench, the court held that if the offeree

5 Reference to: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1QB 256, Court of
Appeal
3

only accepts part of the terms of the offer, and subsequently introduces
new terms, a counter-offer has been made and as such, the previous offer
is struck off and is incapable of subsequent acceptance. 6 Therefore,
Peters response is a counter-offer instead of requesting for further
information as in Stevenson v McLean, the court held that a request for
information was to be regarded only as an enquiry expecting an answer
from the offeror, it was not a specific rejection.7 What Peter did was
rejecting the original offer made by David, making it no longer open to
acceptance as new terms and conditions are added. Moreover, he
wouldnt be making a counter-offer if he doesnt know anything about the
reward.
Besides that, an agreement is not binding unless it is supported by
consideration, it must be something of value that is given in return for
anothers promise. However consideration only needs to be sufficient, it
need not be adequate.8 There is consideration between David and Peter as
both parties are acquiring a benefit at a fixed cost of another, David will
be getting his cat, whilst losing 1000, whereas Peter would be getting his
reward while losing a cat. The moment when Peter retuned Nimmie due to
her sons allergic to cats, there should be an intention to create legal
relationship as offer and acceptance had been established.

6 Reference to: Hyde v Wrench [1840] 3 Beav 334, 49 ER 132 (Rolls Court)
7 Reference to: Stevenson, Jacques & Co. v McLean [1880]5 QBD 346 (QB)
8 Reference to: Thomas v Thomas [1842]2 Q.B. 851, 114 E.R. 330

The question arises whether Peter is entitled to the reward of 1000

since he did satisfy the condition of the advertisement and there are
contractual liabilities between him and David? However, he would not be
able to claim the reward because the counter-offer of 1500 he made had
stuck off the original offer made by David. Thus, it is submitted that
Peter will get nothing if David did not agree to the new offer of 1500
made by him.

David against Hannah

There is no contractual liability formed between David and Hannah. This is
because Hannah inadvertently returned the wrong cat, Simmie to David
instead of Timmie, which leads her failed in accepting David offer.
Therefore, she is not a potential offeree. This is because the offer made by
David is the safe return of the six cats as stated on his advertisement, to
enable to accept his offer, Hannah have to return the right cat to David.
Following the case of Thomas v Thomas, the court held that
consideration need not to be adequate but it must be sufficient, they are
not concerned with whether one side of a contractual agreement has paid
too much or too little for something, it doesnt affect the validity of the
contract.9 Therefore, there is consideration made by Hannah as she took
Timmie home and feeds him and also incurred 20 when she makes her
trip to deliver the pet order to David, there is detriment suffered by her.
However, although there is an exist of consideration between David and

9 Ibid.
5

Hannah, without the acceptance of an offer, a legally binding contract

would not be formed.
The question which has to be satisfied is will Hannah still be able to
claim the reward if she returned the wrong cat? If she is not entitled to the
reward, can she claim the 20 back which she incurred? Since there is no
contractual liability between David and Hannah, it is submitted that
Hannah will not be entitled for the reward because she didnt fulfil the
necessary offer. If Hannah would want to recover the money she incurred
for her part-performance in Davids offer, she can pursue a contractual
claim or bring a restitutionary claim which is known as quantum meruit
but can claim no more than the money she incurred. 10 A claim for
quantum meruit is a claim for work done but no payment has been
received and cannot be obtained under a contract, which claimants can
claim a reasonable price for their performance.11 However, it can be
argued by David that the performance which Hannah did was not capable
to the offer he made as she returned the wrong cat, therefore he wouldnt
need to pay for the 20 which Hannah incurred.

David against Jonathan

Knowledge of the offer of a reward is necessary in order for there to be
acceptance and a legally binding contract even if that is not the primary
motivation for the performance. In Williams v Carwardine, the court held
10 Reference to: Planche v Colburn [1831]8 Bing 14
11 Reference to: D Rahnavard, Course Note Contract Law (1st edn Hodder
Education, Oxon 2012) 175
6

that there can be a contract with any person who performed the
necessary conditions in an advertisement, all that was necessary to fulfil
the contract was that one knew about the reward before giving the
information.12 On the fact in Jonathans situation, he did found Davids cat,
Minnie, and safely returned it to David, which would have enabled him to
claim the reward in a much later state. However, although he did satisfy
all the conditions of Davids offer, yet, the thing is he didnt read the
advertisement placed by David in Daily Bungles. In the case of Fitch v
Snedaker, the court held that a person who gave information without any
knowledge of the reward cannot claim the reward. 13 Therefore, he is
probably not entitled to the reward since he knows nothing about the
reward and a person cannot accept an offer that he is unaware.
But the question is, could Jonathan still able to claim the reward if he knew
about Davids offer after he returned Minnie to him? According to Gibbons
v Proctor, the court held that the offeree was allowed to claim the reward
even though he did not know about the offer at the time he discovered
the information but get to know about it before he claimed the reward. 14
However, if Jonathan had discovered about the reward after he returned
Minnie, he would be treated as if he never known about the reward and
David can choose not to pay him 1000. It then depends on David if he

12 Reference to: Williams v Carwardine [1833]5 C&P 566, 172 ER 1101

13 Reference to: Fitch v Snedaker 38 NY 248 (1868)
14 Reference to: Gibbons v Proctor [1891]64 LT 594
7

wants to pay the reward to Jonathan but he wont be sued for any breach
of contract although he refuses to do so.
David against Richard
The question which now the courts are facing is whether Richard is
entitled for the reward? Richard, who is a street sweeper, found Bimmie
with severe burn and injured. He took Bimmie to the vetenarian and
incurred 60 for the treatment. In Dunlop v Selfridge, the House of Lords
stated that one must show that he has bought the defendants promise by
giving or promising something in return for it.15 Therefore, considerations
have been made by Richard as he did suffered detriment on the cost of
the treatment and also put effort to bring Bimmie back to David.
Acceptance has been started at the moment when Richard found Bimmie
and ended when Richard returned him to David. Besides that, there is also
intention to create legal relationship among the parties. For David, he is
quite serious in this issue because he decided to put up an advertisement
to search for his lost cats which he had been putting up a lot of effort in
training them for stage performance, it is quite hard and a wasting of time
to train a new cat to take part in the upcoming competition. Therefore, he
is very desperate to find his lost cats back. For Richard, the intention for
him would be the reward which David offered. The most important issue is
does Richard knows anything about the advertisement? If he do know
about the information of the reward, he could have claimed it from David
15 Reference to: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] UKHL
1, [1915] AC 847
8

as accordance to the case of Williams v Carwardine. 16 However, if he

didnt know about the offer of David, but yet he get to know it before
returning Bimmie, he can still claim for the reward based on the case of
Gibson v Proctor.17
But there is an argument which can be brought out by David to refuse
Richard from claiming the reward. On the advertisement which David
placed, stated that 1000 reward will be given with the safe return of the
cats, but when Richard returned Bimmie to David, Bimmie was suffering
injury, does this satisfy the condition of Davids offer?

This has to be

decided by the courts then and depends on David if he wants to

compromise. Furthermore, if Richard has successfully claimed the reward,
can he still claim an extra 60 back which he incurred for the treatment of
Bimmie? According to the quantum meruit, he could probably claim for
the detriment he suffered as this is a claim for work done.
Moreover, knowing that Bimmie is unable to take part in the
upcoming competition, David decides to revoke his offer by placing a
notice at the community hall to cancel the reward.

Although his

revocation of his offer is reasonable, it would not be accepted by the

courts because the previous method he used to make an offer is by
putting an advertisement on the Daily Bungle, but on the much later
state, he placed a notice at the community hall to revoke his offer, the
fact of this withdrawal must be communicated to the offeree who
16 Reference to: Williams v Carwardine [1833]5 C&P 566, 172 ER 1101
17 Reference to: Gibbons v Proctor [1891]64 LT 594
9

otherwise would be unfairly treated. In the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven,

the court held that revocation of an offer must be received and
understood by the offeree before it comes into effect.18 This is because the
offeree who read Daily Bungle may not be noticing the notice in the
communication hall. Therefore, if David used a unilateral method to make
an offer, he has to end with a unilateral method or in a better way.
Another reason that his revocation of offer is not acceptable is
because acceptance must occur prior to acceptance. In the case of
Routledge v Grant, the court held that until such time as an offer is
accepted, the offeror is free to revoke it, even if they have given the
recipient a period of time to consider it. 19 However, Richards acceptance
had already ended by the time he returned Bimmie, and the moment
when David revoked his offer was after Richards acceptance. This shows
that Davids revocation of offer occurs after Richards acceptance and
therefore it is not a good revocation, David can be sued in breach of
contract.
With all the elements which vital to the formation of contract, it is then
submitted that Richard is the party who most probably be entitled for the
reward since Davids revocation is not successful.
David against Sheeba

18 Reference to: Byrne v Van Tienhoven [1880] 5 CPD 344

19 Reference to: Routledge v Grant [1828] 4 Bing 653, 130 ER 920
10

In the case of Balfour v Balfour, the court held that the wife is not
able to claim damages from her husband because the agreement was
purely a domestic agreement and therefore it was presumed that the
parties did not intend to be legally bound. 20 Davids wife, Sheeba wouldnt
be able to sue him if he refuses to pay her the reward as there was lack of
consideration and the agreement between them was probably domestic.
Besides that, the courts will be unwilling to intervene and enforce such
arrangements or the courts would be full of domestic disputes. 21 The
arrangements would be left to the parties themselves to sort out and will
thus not usually be held to be legally binding.22
Therefore, although there is acceptance by her wife, David could still
choose not to pay her since there isnt any intention to create legally
binding obligations between them, which means that no contractual
liabilities were formed. As in the case of Merritt v Merritt, the court held
that where spouses have separated, it is generally considered that they
do intend to be bound by their agreements.23 The written agreement
signed was further evidence of an intention to be bound. For instance,
there isnt any evidence to rebut the presumption as there was no
contract between David and Sheeba and they are still spouses.
20 Reference to: Balfour v Balfour [1919]2 KB 571
21 Reference to: C Turner, Unlocking Contract Law (3rd edn Routledge, Oxon
2013) 70
22 Ibid.
23 Reference to: Merritt v Merritt [1970] 1 WLR 1211 Court of Appeal
11

David against Danny

The next issue brought to the surface would be did Danny return Eimmie
to David after he heard from Joshua that David had revoked his offer? He
would have probably decided to keep Eimmie as his pet after knowing
that. This is because if Danny didnt return Eimmie to David, then no
consideration will be provided by Danny in exchange of Davids promise.
However, if he still decides to return Eimmie to David, could he claim for
the reward since he had already heard of the revocation? This has to be
identified if Davids revocation is valid and it is communicated as
according to the case of Bryne v Leon Van Tienhoven, the court held that a
revocation only will take effect upon communication.24
Davids revocation should be valid in Dannys situation as he had
already heard about the revocation through Joshua, which is considered as
a reliable source. In the case of Dickinson v Dodds, the court held that the
revocation was acceptable and valid as the third party shown to be a
mutual acquaintance on whom both could rely. 25 On the fact that Danny
would have the knowledge about the revocation as he did get informed by
Joshua, and eventually Davids revocation is communicated to Danny.
Therefore, the principle in Bryne v Leon Van Tienhoven was established.
However, this will be on the courts discretion whether Danny is able to
claim for the reward, but the court would highly deny his claimant as he

24 Reference to: Byrne v Van Tienhoven [1880] 5 CPD 344

25 Reference to: Dickinson v Dodds [1876] 2 ChD 463
12

had the knowledge of the revocation, showing that revocation is

communicated.
Conclusion
In my humble opinion, to wrap up this issue, the court would mostly
decide that the potential offeree is Richard since a legally binding
agreement was formed between him and the offeror. Thus, he may be
entitled to the reward and able to claim the additional money back which
he incurred. Whilst, the others may not be entitled for the reward.

13

Bibliography
Book
Stone R., The Modern Law of Contract (8th edn Routledge-Cavendish,
Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2009)
Turner C., Unlocking Contract Law (3rd edn Routledge, Oxon 2013)
McKendrick E., Contract Law Text, Cases, And Materials (4th edn OUP,
Oxford 2010)
Rahnavard D., Course Note Contract Law (1st edn Hodder Education, Oxon
2012)

14

Table of Cases
Patridge v Crittenden [1986] 1 WLR 1204
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1QB 256, Court of Appeal
Hyde v Wrench [1840] 3 Beav 334, 49 ER 132 (Rolls Court)
Stevenson, Jacques & Co. v McLean [1880]5 QBD 346 (QB)
Thomas v Thomas [1842]2 Q.B. 851, 114 E.R. 330
Planche v Colburn [1831]8 Bing 14
Williams v Carwardine [1833]5 C&P 566, 172 ER 1101

Fitch v Snedaker 38 NY 248 (1868)

Gibbons v Proctor [1891]64 LT 594

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] UKHL 1, [1915]
AC 847

Byrne v Van Tienhoven [1880] 5 CPD 344

Routledge v Grant [1828] 4 Bing 653, 130 ER 920

Balfour v Balfour [1919]2 KB 571

Merritt v Merritt [1970] 1 WLR 1211 Court of Appeal

15

Dickinson v Dodds [1876] 2 ChD 463

16