- Is there any legal relation between Soo Burgers and their customers (Michael and Brett)
- If yes than can Michael “mickey” “ask for his claim (grand price) from Soo burger?
- Can Brett vulture ask for his claim (grand price) from Soo burger?
- Whether Soo burger needs to provide both customers their claims?
Under contract law, there are three element that define its existence as when one party makes a promise to other party, and both are abided by legal rights and obligation which are enforceable in a court of law.
Element 1) intention
The intention must be clear amongst the parties that contains the promises that is intended be enforceable in law.
Element 2) Agreement between the parties
The principle concept of agreement is that there must be offer by one party (the offeror) and acceptance (offeree) by another party. the facts that helps to continue the agreement are time, place and contents.
If it is clear in circumstances that one party wilful to create an offer, this fact stated in Carlil v Carbolic smoke ball Co  1 QB where court institute that the word uses by company relate to create an offer and any reasonable person who accepts it intended to be bound.
Element 3) Consideration
For every simple contract, the consideration must have its validity which involves the promisor giving something to promisee while carrying out the act.
According to the fact given in the case, it can be examined that Michael cannot ask for his claim and Brett can claim his grand prize as they both accepted the offer before cancellation of the offer by the SOO burger (offeror) is different in both scenarios. By application of the rule relating to contract law there is a clear intention by SOO burger to make an offer to public at large through social networks for promoting their sales. The offer known as the Fair Dinkum deal”. In this deal, a single token would be attached to every double decker burger and anyone who collects 50 tokens can redeem from the counter to get one golden ticket. Customer who gets the golden ticket can scratch it and if it discloses grand price (Mazda cx-9) they can claim for it from SOO burger’s head office. Michael and Brett collect their 50 tokens and 100 tokens respectively thereby indicating that they accepted the offer of SOO burger. This fact is similar to Carlil v carbolic smoke ball . In end it can be deduced that there is a clear scenario of offer and acceptance in the given case.
Furthermore, when SOO Burgers came to know about the printing error that instead of only one golden ticket in the promotion reveals Mazda CX-9 , every one in five tickets reveals the grand price, SOO burger immediately cancel the offer by declaring on every social network. By exploring the case , it can be said that prior to cancellation of offer , Brett went to claim his two golden grand price at SOO burger head office that means he already accepted the offer, but he told by reception to wait in waiting area and after that one of employee of SOO burger came outside and posted on the door that the offer is void. But Brett can claim his price because according to the contract rules he accepted before the cancellation of the offer. This fact is to similar to Brogden v Metropolitan Rly co, where the contract is accepted by the parties, in the given case its accepted by Michael and Brett by collecting the tokens.
Michael eagerly wanted to win the price and he ate all 50 burgers at a time and because of over consumption himself, he went with urgent haste to the hospital. When he woke up, he heard about the cancellation of offer from the people around him and nothing from official comptroller. When he went in rush to SOO burger head office to claim his grand price, he saw the official post on SOO burger head office door. According to rules relating to contract law it is clear cancellation of offer before acceptance means before claiming the golden price from the SOO burger head office. In addition, by applying the contract law there is an offer (by SOO burger) and acceptance of offer ( to claim the grand price by Brett) and cancellation of offer before accepting (Michael before claiming the grand price SOO burger cancel the offer) in the given both scenario (in case of Michael and Brett).
By examining the contract law in all situation (offer, acceptance and cancellation of offer before accepting) and applying it in the given case, it can be concluded that
- A) In Michael’s case, SOO burger is not liable to provide any claim because there is a cancellation of offer before Michael claim his grand price from SOO burger head office.
- B) In Brett’s situation, SOO burger is liable to pay him grand price because he made the claim before SOO burger cancelled their offer.