QUESTION ONE This is a case that falls under the law of contract under which defines the process

of the acceptance of an offer. The acceptance of an offer occurs when the offeree, the person accepting the offer, mentally assents to the offerors proposal and, generally speaking, makes that assent known to the offeror, who is the person making the offer. In order for the acceptance to be considered valid there are some rules that have to be considered. Firstly the offeree must have been aware of, and must have intended to accept the offer, when he did what is alleged to be the acceptance. The offeree has to know about the existence of the offer and has to give consideration to it by consenting and performing the offer otherwise what he regards as the acceptance can easily be rejected by the court. As is the case in The Crown versus Clark case whereby the defendant did perform as what was stated in the offer but had not given consent to the offer. The other rule is that the offerees assent must be notified or made known to the offeror. The offeree has to inform the offeror that he has accepted the offer otherwise it will not be seen as an acceptance in the court of law. A case in point is the Felthouse v Bindley case in which the nephew of the plaintiff had made an offer to sell a horse to the plaintiff to which the plaintiff made a counter-offer and in the ending of his letter stated that if the nephew did not reply he would consider the horse his. The nephew did not reply but before the sale of the horse, informed the defendant that the horse had been sold. The defendant forgot and went ahead to sell the horse and the plaintiff sued the auctioneer who is the defendant for conversion by selling the horse without his authority. the court ruled that the it is clear that the nephew intended to have the uncle buy the horse at the price the uncle had made but he did not communicate such his intention to his uncle or done anything to bind himself and therefore nothing had been done to accord the uncle ownership of the horse till the time it was sold by the defendant. There are however some exceptions to the acceptance of an offer. If from the words of an offer the offeror has waived the right to be notified of the acceptance, the acceptance will be effective even though it had not been communicated or made known to him. An offer which is made to the can be accepted by anybody who fulfills or performs the conditions stated in the offer. A case in point is the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) case in which the defendants had placed an advertisement in the newspaper for people who contract diseases caused by cold after using their product to collect a reward. The plaintiff used the ball as directed but in the end was attacked by influenza. She went ahead to sue to recover the advertised reward. It was held by English Court of Appeal that the offer had been converted into a binding contract by the plaintiffs acceptance meaning that once she acted upon the offer by doing what was required as stated in the offer, then she had actually accepted the offer and the defendants were obliged to give the reward. The way they framed their advertisement was a notice for the general public to perform on the offer and therefore were not expecting a written notice of acceptance.

The legal problem here is as follows. Firstly there was an offer that was made to the general public by Mike Muscle informing them of the offer of the reward for the first person to swim from Southsea to the Isle of Wight before 10th January 1999 and another reward for cycling to Oxford. Sarah read it in a local newspaper and accepted the offer. She reached Oxford on the evening of 11th January but she learnt later of the prize for cycling to Oxford and wants to claim both. The legal problem here is that she is claiming for a prize which was stated in an offer that she was not aware of. Therefore in light of the facts given, the legal solution to this would be that Sarah should may be eligible to claim the first prize since she had acted on the offer QUESTION TWO For George the legal principle that is being examined in his case is found under the law of contract which deals with the acceptance of offer. The acceptance of an offer occurs when the offeree mentally assents to the offerors proposal and generally speaking makes that assent known to the offeror. The rule that applies here is that the offeree must have been aware of, and must have intended to accept the offer, when he did what is alleged to be the acceptance. This is seen in the case of William v Cowardine (1833) whereby the defendant had given a reward for conviction of a murderer and the plaintiff new about the murderer as well as the reward and gave the information. Her motive was to ease her conscience. It was held that her motive was irrelevant but what mattered was that she had fulfilled the terms of the offer. The advertisement stated that the first three customers who make a purchase of 30 pounds will be entitled to claim a free bouquet of flowers. George is the first customer who makes a purchase worth 35 pounds. As he leaves the shop is when he gets knowledge of the offer from another customer. The legal problem here is that George had fulfilled the terms of the offer but was not aware of the offer when he did what he saw to be the acceptance. The legal solution to this is that George at the time of making the purchase was not aware of the offer. Had he been aware he would have asked for it at the point of making the transaction. But the fact that he had no prior knowledge of the offer, he cannot be entitled to claim the bouquet of flowers. This is highlighted in The Crown v Clark (High Court of Australia) whereby the The Crown had posted an advertisement if a reward that would be given for the arrest and conviction of those who had murdered two police officers. Clarke had given information that led to the conviction of those who had murdered one of the police officers. it was held by the High Court of Australia that Clarke had seen the offer but had not given consideration to it. They held that there cannot be assent without knowledge of the offer and ignorance of the offer is the same thing whether it is due to never hearing of it or to forgetting it after hearing.

In conclusion for George I would advise him that legally his case would not hold in a court of law since he did not follow the key principle that the offeree must be aware of the offer that has been placed. In the case of Steven, the legal principle that is evident here is also contained in the law of contract specifically the invitation to treat. This means that a person can perform an action or say something that can be understood by another as an offer to which this person can go ahead and accept. This is illustrated in the case of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd (1952) All E.R 456. it was held that the display on the shelves was a mere invitation to treat but does not amount to an offer to sell. The shopkeeper has to express the willingness to sell for the contract for sale to be completed. The legal solution to the problem therefore based on the above case, is that the goods displayed with the price tag were merely an invitation to treat and only when the owner of the shop is willing to sell is when the transaction is complete and the contract has been created. Therefore in conclusion, Stevens case would not hold in a court of law since the judge overseeing the case will rule in favour of the owner of the shop.

QUESTION THREE The legal principle in this case can be found in the law of contract specifically the acceptance of an offer. This occurs when the offeree mentally accepts to the offerors proposal and generally speaking makes the assent known to the offeror. The person making the offer has to be aware of the acceptance by the one taking up the offer. the case of Gibbons v Proctor (1891) 64 LT 594 highlights this whereby a policeman gave information in ingnorance of the offer of reward and was still allowed to recover the reward. The better