Communication of Offer

Question 1

Blair v. Western Mutual Benefit Association Assn., [1972] 4 WWR 284 (BCCA) (*)
(Offer and Acceptance/Deliberate Communication of Offer)

Issue:
- Can there be acceptance of an offer informally communicated?
- Was there a meeting of the minds?
- Was there a contract formed?

Answer 1

Rules:
- An offer must be communicated to the offeree in their capacity as an offeree and there must be intention to create legal obligation.
- An offer cannot be accepted if the offer is not formally communicated to begin with.
- An informal promise/offer that is not communicated directly is not an offer that can be accepted.
- When you are not determined to be in the role of an offeree, there is no offer given to you to even accept.

Analysis:
- A claims that the resolution by R constituted an offer and the action of retirement completed by A acted as acceptance (unilateral).
- A had only heard of the resolution by R regarding her retirement pay, but was never told directly.
- Acceptance by A cannot occur if there was no direct offer/promise made to her and merely the intention of an offer through a brief meeting.
- No meeting of the minds.
- A was not in a role as the offeree while transcribing the meeting, therefore not allowing her to accept. Her job here was to transcribe the meeting, not to be an offeree who can accept an offer.
- i.e. if you find a random-confidential piece of paper on the floor offering a specific contract, you can’t just pick it up and accept it if it’s not an open offer to the world.

Conclusion:
- No, it was not a communication of offer and she was not entitled to the pension.

Question 2

WILLIAMS v. CARWARDINE
(1833), 4 B. & Ad. 621, 110 E.R. 590 (K.B.)
(Communication of Offer, Motivation in Acceptance)

Issues:
- Does the claimants/plaintiffs motives effect acceptance of an offer?

Answer 2

Rules:
- Motives are not relevant when it comes to accepting and completing a unilateral contract.
- When a unilateral contract offer is made and an individual accepts that offer, the offer is binding even if the offeree had motives other than acceptance of the contract – court will presume it was done for contractual purpose.
- Performing condition of offer knowingly is acceptance.

Analysis:
- P had performed the condition/act of the unilateral contract for the reward.
- The plaintiff, by giving information which led to the conviction of the murderer has brought herself within then terms of the advertisement, and therefore is entitled to reward.
- Advertisement of reward counts as a general promise and only requires completion of the act of giving information to be complete (unilateral contract).
- P was in a position to be an offeree since the offer was communicated clearly, her motive is irrelevant.

Conclusion:
- Yes, she accepted the unilateral contract and yes she is entitled to claim the reward.

Question 3

R.v.Clarke (1927), 40 C.L.R. 227 (Aust. H.C.)
(Performance of Unilateral Contract Doesn’t Work Without Knowledge of the Offer)

Issues:
- Do you need to have prior knowledge of an offer in a unilateral contract in order to give consent and accept it?

Answer 3

Rules:
- You do not need to specify motive to provide consent, but you still need to show prior consent of knowing an offer in order to accept it.
- You cannot accept offers that you do not give consent over either mentally or verbally (communication of acceptance).
- If you are unaware of an offer but complete the associated action (unilateral contract) you cannot accept the offer as there was no communication of it and no meeting of the minds.

Analysis:
- There must be communication of acceptance of an offer, in this case mental consent before it can possibly be accepted.
- An offer does not bind the person who makes it until it has been accepted, and its acceptance must be communicated.
- The motive behind consent may be immaterial, but the consent itself to an offer is essential (communication of acceptance).
- P cannot give consent to an offer, as without your knowledge of it beforehand, and forgetting it or never hearing of it does not allow consent.
- P’s information to D was not sufficient in conviction Treffene as he provided it after the arrest, not before.

Question 4

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
(Promise/Offer or a Sales Puff?)

What does this case say about communication of an offer?

Answer 4

• The communication of an offer can be implied through advertising no matter how extravagant or gross it may be.
  • Making an offer to everyone or the world is not merely a sales puff/non-sensical.
  • If you make a direct offer that an objective person would see as a promise in exchange for a reward upon completing an action (unilateral contract) then you are entitled to fulfill that contract in giving the reward.
  • The only acceptance required is the fulfillment of the action and being mentally aware of the offer, not the communication of acceptance unless stated by the offeror.