Business and Contract Law: Case Study of SOO Burgers

Part A:

Option 1: Contract law (SSO burgers)

Issue:

SOO burgers have been a famous chain of the hamburger restaurant that opened in Australia. With its immense competition worldwide, this restaurant started to organise a promotional deal called “the Fair Dinked deal”. Thus according to the rules, a token is provided to every 'Double-decker Emu burger” and if 50 of these tokens are collected a golden card is given. When scratched if it showed a golden car then that person would be the lucky winner. This agreement SOO Burgers made with all its customers for brand and sale promotion. Now there were two customers - one was Michael Mickey and another was Brett. Both of them were very determined to win the golden ticket and also the car- “Mazda CX-9”.

Thus for Michael Mickey, he loves the Emu burger and ordered 50 of those and ate all of the burgers. Thus after eating he felt exhausted and rushed to hospital emergency to wash out his stomach. He was sure that he would get that golden ticket and also that golden car.

Next was Brett who was smart enough and collected all the tickets that people left ignoring the promotional fact. He collected 100 of them and then went to the restaurant to redeem all those. Luckily he got two golden scratch cards and both of them showed car prices. When Brett went to the headquarters to get his car prizes, he saw a hoarding mentioned that SOO burgers were sorry and apologetic for printing wrong and even the tickets were incorrect and will not be considered. Thus all the tickets were cancelled. Brett was dismayed and was frustrated with this. Even Soo burgers communicated this worldwide through radio and other media stuff. Thus Brett saw that one of the customers was provided with Car prize but Brett was not provided. So now Soo Burgers wanted legal advice regarding what should be provided to Brett and also to Michael Mickey.

Rules:

The rules that would be sued are Contract law which follows two-part one of agreement formation and second are the consideration of the agreement (Savelyev 2017). The “Australian contract law” is being used for enforcing the agreement and also governing the areas of the contract. Thus the scenario talks about the law implicated in agreement that Soo Burgers made with customers and then after considering, revocation and rejection of the agreement are done.

Assumptions:

Both Mickey and Brett have fallen prey to disagreed contract and agreement and how to want their prize from Soo burgers. Thus SOO burgers now are seeking legal advice as to who is prominent to get the car and who is not. According to the scenario, an agreement was made between Soo burgers and also the customers which said that 50 tokens will get one scratch card, and from there a car can we won. Thus according to “Australian Contract law”, it is prominent that agreement means a mutual understanding between the two parties or persons about their duties and rights regarding present or future consideration. Agreement always comes with consideration (Giancaspro 2017). Thus here the agreement was made between Soo burgers and customers where Soo burgers portrayed a promotional invitation and customers accepted that. Thus a legal relationship was created between them. Now both Brett and Mickey also considered that agreement and took a step to win that car. The assumption is now made on two half-

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

In the case of Brett, being a customer he agreed to the invitation for the promotional activity. Now Brett played a trick and collected all the Emu burger wrappers having tokens in it (Kerikmäe and Rull, 2016). Then he redeemed all those tokens and went to headquarters to receive his gift card. Thus after getting gift cards he scratched and got two golden car prizes. Now an invitation was given by Soo Burgers and Brett accepted the invitation without any further negotiation. Thus the invitation leads to a positive response which turned to an agreement of the deal. Now the case twisted when Soo Burgers revocated as well as rejected the offer that they made (Law.cornell.edu, 2019,)

Soo Burger’s revocated the deal as it is a general rule in “Australian Contract law” under the Agreement provision where any deal or agreement can be revoked before their acceptance. Thus the Revocation can occur at any time. The revocation can also occur if the person offering has promised to fulfil the deal but now is revocating before the deal is fulfilled. Thus the revocation to be successful, it needs to get communicated either indirect ways or in indirect ways. Soo Burgers, the dealer’s revocated when they promised their customers to fulfil the deal (Lacey et al. 2016). Thus Brett is one of the Customers who had fallen prey to the revocation of the deal. The Soo Burgers under the contract law, revocated before the deal was fulfilled and thus to make the revocation Successful they communicated through television, radio, and social media to make customers know that the deal was false.

Thus under this rule, Brett cannot be given the car. Now another rule is rejection. Thus under agreement contract, Rejection means to reject the offer by the offered so that no longer the agreement works. Now Brett was also prey to rejection because Soo burgers already rejected the offer. The refusal was made in front of Brett and now Brett cannot claim any of the prizes from Soo burgers Thus as the offer is rejected by Soo Burgers who are the Offered, then the agreement is valid no longer (Buchanan and Oliver, 2016). Thus under these two rules, Soo burger is not advised to support Brett and provide him with the car.

Now in the case of Michael Mickey, the Revocation under agreement contract is the perfect term to reject his proposal (Cooter and Ulen, 2016). The revocation of the offer was already communicated through online platforms, hoardings, radio, and television. Thus once the revocation of the invitation or agreement is given, further, no claims are supported. Mickey already admitted to the hospital had heard partially about the revocation and rejection of the offer. Thus even after knowing he decided to go to the headquarters and demand for the prize. Thus Soo Burgers is not advised on any ground to give Mickey the car because he already knew that Soo burgers have communicated about promotion to get cancelled. Thus once the offer is revoked before the time of acceptance, it cannot support any claim. Thus no claim was supported for Mickey (australiancontractlaw.com, 2019)

Therefore under Assumption 1 and 2, it was clear that Soo burgers are not legally advised to pay Brett or Mickey with the car. But if seen from another angle, Brett can put this point ahead that after his arrival for claiming the car he came to know about the breaking of the offer. So, in that case, Soo Burgers can breach the duty towards their customers (Cooter and Ulen, 2016). But since the revocation theory is communicated with hoarding and is much stronger, this deal and sue of Brett are almost neglected and Soo burgers win the positive case.

Conclusion:

Thus now the case is towards the side of SOO burgers and they take positive legal advice from the adviser. Thus according to Legal Advice from the court, the organisation is not liable to pay any of the demands and car claims to Brett or Mickey due to the Revocation and rejection theory under agreement. Thus the case side for Soo Burgers is much heavier and Brett and Mickey lose the case. Thus under “Australian Contract law” The case is won by Soo burgers and no Brett and neither Mickey is provided with the prize claims.