- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi Mike.
In the Chapter Four lecture (part four) you mention an exam question regarding revocation of contract. A man overhears a person in another party say that he would give £400 to a person who swims across a harbour and back. A child falls into the harbour and the man rescues the child by swimming back and forth in the harbour. So the man is entitled to the reward (although the person tries to revoke it before the man saves the child).
What confuses me if that there is no indication of acceptance of offer (silence on the man’s behalf is not acceptance). How is his claim of the reward valid? How is this different for someone advertising a reward for a lost pet on a poster? Also his intention was to save the child, not fulfil the challenge.
Thank in advance for your help.
“How is his claim of the reward valid?”
Acceptance by action
“How is this different for someone advertising a reward for a lost pet on a poster?”
It isn’t really, if you think about it! It’s a “reward” case – like Carlills (there was no notification of acceptance by Mrs Carlill either)
“Also his intention was to save the child, not fulfil the challenge.”
Motivation is irrelevant – knowledge of the offer is sufficient
And besides, he DID fulfill the challenge!
OK?
Hi Mike. Thank you for explaining.
But if motivation is irrelevant, what about the cases with the angry girlfriend and the man who was on death row? they could not claim rewards because their motivations were something else.
- The topic ‘chapter four lecture part four’ is closed to new replies.