Regarding not guarantee in the advert that

Regarding
three-seater sofas there is no much clarity of language in the advert and it is
not certain which discount is attached to each particular item. The wording “up
to 70% discount” does not mean that there is unambiguous intention to be bound
by the promise. However, reference to the price of GBP 750 applicable to the
three-seat sofas may lead to an assumption that this price should be applicable
at least to some available three-seat sofas until 31 August 2009. Promise of a
discount is in place may be understood by public as an offer with intention to
create binding legal relations (Bowerman v Association of British Travel Agents
Ltd 1996). the other hand, the statement of price is normally not an offer
but merely an invitation to treat and there is not guarantee in the advert that
each three-seater sofa will be sold at GBP 750 until 31 August 2009 (Clifton v
Palumbo 1944), therefore this part of the advertisement, if seen separately
from part about two-seaters, is more likely to be an invitation to treat. It
advertises bilateral contract for sale and purchase of sofas at a price reduced
up to 70%, but such advertisements normally may lead to further bargaining and
the sellers are not obliged to sell to anyone who is willing to buy (Elliott
& Quinn, 2007, p.14).

The offer of reward
in exchange for the act of purchasing three-seater at a reduced price of GBP
750 may correspond to the scenario of Carlill v Carbolic SmokeBall Co 1893
with unilateral offer. for two-seater sofas, despite of the clear promise to
give them for free provided that three- seater one is purchased at a reduced
price of GBP 750, the issue of two-seater sofas’ availability may be raised by
the seller since Bigstore does not seem to be a manufacturer of them (Grainger
v Gough 1896), and with notices in the store advising that those
were subject to availability this part of the advert could still be a mere
invitation to treat, although it is arguable that intention to be bound is
there and the act requested from the purchaser is clear. Still, if performance
of the act becomes impossible, i.e. if it is not realistic to buy a
three-seater sofa for GBP 750, then Susan cannot accept unilateral offer.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Nevertheless, by accepting GBP 100 from her Bigstore may act similarly to the
defendant in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1893 depositing GBP 1000
with the bank, this way expressing the intention to be bound by the main offer.

Moreover, once the performance of the requested act started (i.e. purchasing
three-seater) Bigstore cannot prevent this action from being completed (Daulia
v Four Mill Bank Nominees Ltd 1978), therefore Susan should be allowed to
complete the intended act of purchasing three seaters for GBP 750 if her payment
of GBP 100 is seen as start of performance which once completed makes her
entitled to free two-seater. Therefore, there is likely to be a unilateral
offer of two-seater sofa here.