Bilateral Contracts Case Study

1096 Words3 Pages

According to Elliot and Quinn, in order for a contract to exist one party must make and offer and the other must have accepted it, thus resulting a legally binding contract. Contracts can take many forms but are generally split into two types, bilateral and unilateral. In bilateral contacts, each party takes on a specific obligation and one promising the other to do something in return for something else. Unilateral contracts, on the other hand mean that acceptance and performance constitute the same act therefore, no prior communication of acceptance is practicable. (Law for Business Students pg 94)
Advertisements can be treated as both unilateral and bilateral contracts so it is important to find the distinction between the two. While bilateral
Some of the products on display were medicines which could only be sold by a registered pharmacist, who was waiting at the till point. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain argued that a sale took place when the goods were taken from the shelf and put into a customer’s basket, hence without the presence of a registered pharmacist contrary to legal requirements. The Court of Appeal disagreed and judged that the items on shelves are only invitations to treat not offers to sell. Invitations to treat can frequently misinterpreted as an offer for example in the case of Partridge v Crittenden (1968) where the defendant placed an advertisement, similarly in a news outlet for Bramblefinches however, was declared an invitation to treat by the High
They also decided that it was in fact possible to make an offer to the world at large, as agreed upon by Edwin Peel (The Law of Contract pg10) and that due to the definition of a unilateral contract as stated above, there is no requirement that the offeree communicates and intention to accept as the acceptance is made through full performance. A modern illustration of offers made to the public at large is demonstrated in the case of Bowerman V Association of British Travel Agents LTD (1996) this recent suit reinforces Carlill and Carbolic’s significance as it reiterates the regulations used in the

Open Document