Part A
The main issue in this case is whether there is a binding contract between Bisco and Smith.
A contract is an agreement which is intended to be legally binding and enforceable by the law. Contracts may be created in writing, orally, or inferred from parties’ conduct. For a contract to be enforceable it must contain an offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity and a lawful purpose. This question relates to offer, acceptance and consideration. An offer is a proposition made on specific terms by the offeror with a promise to be bound by that proposition if the offeree accepts the terms. Acceptance is the unconditional assent to all the terms of the offer. It may be written, oral or inferred by conduct. Consideration is defined as some right interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other Curie vs Misa (1875).
An offer must be clear Guthing v Lynn (1831), communicated to the other party Bloom v American Swiss Watch Co.(1915) and it needs to be distinguished from an invitation to treat (ITT), statements supplying information, declaring an intention or a ‘mere puff’ Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemist (1953).Furthermore, an ITT is an invitation to make an offer and therefore not an offer. Adverts in magazines, newspapers and goods displayed on a shelf are usually ITT.
The general rule for acceptance is that it must be communicated to the offeror. However, there’s an exception to the rule in the case of Unilateral Contracts (UC). A UC is one where the offeror promises to do something, usually pay money in return for an act by the offeree Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.(1983). In UC, the offeree accepts the offer by performing the act set out by the offeror. A contract can be terminated in several ways such as rejection, counter-offer, revocation, lapse of time, death and failure of condition. It is possible to revoke a UC any time before completion as demonstrated in Routledge v Grant (1828). Moreover, the contract must be withdrawn through the same channel that it was initially made Shuey v United States (1875).
The rules of consideration state that ‘consideration need not be of adequate value’ which means that however small a value might be, it can constitute consideration provided that the consideration has some value in the eyes of the law Thomas v Thomas (1959). Moreover, consideration ‘must be sufficient’ meaning that what is promised must have some measurable and adequate value. This means that there is an exchange of promise and something of tangible value where both parties gain a reward and receive a detriment. Additionally, Past Consideration is a rule that states that if an act has been done before a promise has been made, it is not of good consideration Re McArdle (1951). In a UC the performance is consideration for the promise whilst the promise is consideration for the performance. In regards of UC, consideration is only completed when that act is done, therefore the act is said to be Executed consideration.
Bisco’s advertised that whoever finds his dog and returns it can claim a reward. Since Bisco put an advert on a newspaper, it could be viewed as an ITT and not an offer as seen in Fisher v Bell (1961). In this case, there is no offer made between both parties, as Smith did not approach Bisco with an offer. However, one may argue that this is a UC as Bisco offers a monetary reward in exchange for someone finding his dog and returning it. In this case, there’s a UC in place as there’s a reward for executing an act.
Whether there was an acceptance of the offer depends on if it was an ITT or a UC. There is no acceptance in an ITT since it is not an offer. There was no offer proposed to Bisco from Smith. If this was to be viewed as an ITT, there would be no binding contract between the parties. Whereas, in a UC, the offeree accepts the offer by preforming the act in contract. Smith has demonstrated an acceptance of the offer through returning the dog to Bisco on Friday. Therefore, from a UC perspective, there’s a binding contract in place.
In order to determine if a contract was in place, consideration needs to be demonstrated by the plaintiff and the offeror. Smith finding Bisco’s dog demonstrates Executed consideration as he has completed the act of finding his dog. If Smith was to find and return the dog before acknowledging that there was a reward, it would be considered as past consideration as he had no intention to claim a reward. The case conforms to the rule of Adequate value through portraying that Bisco would lose £1000 in exchange for the return of his dog. Smith on the other hand would lose time and effort in order to find Bisco’s dog to gain a reward. Moreover, Consideration is of sufficient value as the reward is in monetary terms, therefore measurable. Subsequently, this promise is legally binding as consideration is demonstrated by both parties and the rules of the consideration have been demonstrated.
Bisco’s initially posted his offer in the form of a UC in ‘The Brighton Daily’ local newspaper, he then proceeded to terminate his offer through placing a notice in the ‘Brighton Market’. Posting the termination notice in the Brighton Market after publishing the offer on the local newspaper portrays the violation of the revocation rule of publishing the withdrawal through the same channel. In conclusion, the offer cannot be withdrawn, and a contract still exists between both parties.
To conclude, Smith can sue Bisco for the reward as offer exists through a UC. Acceptance has been proven through the execution of the act and the termination of the contract was invalid as it was posted on different channels. Furthermore, since executed consideration was demonstrated there is a binding contract.
Part B
In the case of Smith and Bisco, the issue is whether the dispute is supported by valuable consideration. Having already stated the definition of consideration in Part A one of the rules of consideration is that a person must do more than their existing duty. Existing duty states that an act on a pre-existing duty cannot be used as consideration for variation in the contract. However, a person must do more than their existing duty in order for it to be supported by consideration.
If Smith was employed by the Brighton Council as the local dog catcher, it is his duty to find and return missing dogs. Smith would therefore, be performing a Public Duty which is a legal existing duty Collins v Godefory (1831).
Determining if Smith can claim the reward depends on whether there was valuable consideration. As stated before, Smith in this case is carrying out an existing duty and therefore there’s no valuable consideration in place. It is arguable that returning the dog to Bisco would be considered as performing more than an existing duty. This relies on whether the council requires him to return the dogs to their owners or to the council’s dog warden. If the council requires Smith to return the dog to the owner, then the law does not allow someone to claim expenses incurred in the performance of a duty that they were merely obliged to by the law Stilk v Myrick (1809). However, if the council required him to return missing dogs to the dog warden, returning the dog to the owner would be performing more than his existing duty. Therefore, there would be a valuable consideration.
In conclusion, if his job was to return missing dogs to the owners, then he cannot claim the reward as he’s performing a public. Smith can only claim a reward if his job was to return the missing dogs to the dog warden, in this case a valuable consideration would exist.