Business Law for Sunshine Coast Resort-myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theBusiness Law for Sunshine Coast Resort. Answer: Issue The key issue is whether there is a valid contract between Gaia and SuperNatural and whether Gaia can ask for a refund from Alexander and Roxanne because they guaranteed that taking their medicine can immune people from catching viral strain NeuroToxicia and even after taking their medicine, as per instruction, Gaia gets a strain of NeuroToxicia. Law A contract is referred to an agreement that legally binds its parties to the terms of the contract. In order to create a valid legal contract, parties are required to fulfil its essential elements which include offer and acceptance, valid consideration, mutual intention, free and voluntary consent, capacity of parties, certainty of terms, and legality of the subject matter. A contract cannot be formed without fulfilment of these elements. A basic contract required agreement, intention and consideration. An agreement is referred to meeting of minds between two or more parties which include an offer and acceptance. An agreement can be written or spoken. An invitation to treat is an initial approach in which a person invites others to deal with him on certain specified terms. Most advertisements are treated as an invitation to treat for potential customers to consider something. The doctrine of invitation to treat was explained by the court in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893 ] 1 QB 256 case. An acceptance can be given by spoken words, written words, performance or an act or conduct. An offer which constructs by performance creates a unilateral contract. It is formed by an express offer that can be accepted by a party only through performance. A bilateral contract is open for one person to accept whereas a unilateral contract is open for the world. In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co case, the court held that an offer can be open for the world and it can be accepted by the performance of an act. The parties to a contract must have intention to create legal relations. Generally, the presence of a valid consideration is the evidence of an intention however it is not always the case. In commercial agreements, it is presumed that the parties have an intention to enter into a legal contract. Although puffery or puff is a promise made during a commercial which clearly intended not to be taken seriously. It is necessary that a valid contract must be available in each contract which can include money, provision of goods or services, onerous obligation, refraining from do ing something or promise to do something. Although these are essential elements of a contract which are necessary to be fulfilled by the contracting parties, however, the court can enforce a contract even when its essential elements are not fulfilled based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Lord Denning provided in Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings [1976] QB 225 case that consideration is not required if promissory estoppel is proved. This case is relevant because in this case, the court provided that if a person led another to believe in specific act by his/her conduct or words, he/she will not be allowed to go back to his/her words. In this case, it was held that presence of consideration is not mandatory in when promissory estoppel is proved. It is necessary that contracting parties are capable of entering into a contract. Incapable parties include minor, intoxicated person, bankrupts, and person lacking intellectual capacity. It is necessary that parties to a contract must have intention to create a legal relationship which means an intention must be free from any external forces. There are a number of vitiating factors that affect the genuine consent of contracting parties which include unconscionable conduct, misrepresentation, undue influence, duress and mi stake. Lack of genuine or free consent due to these factors can set aside a contract, and the court can declare it void. The party can also sue for damages if the consent is not free or involuntary. Application In this case, the facts are similar to Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256 case. In this case, an advertisement was given by a business called SuperNatural for a tablet called Flu-Defeat which is advertised as a guaranteed cure for a serious viral strain called NeuroToxicia. The company further provided that a person has to take their medicine for two months based on given instructions and it will cure the viral strain of NeuroToxicia. The corporation claimed that if a person catches the viral strain of NeuroToxicia after using their medicine, then they will refund his/her money and also fund an all-expense paid trip to Sunshine coast Resort town of Noosa. In order to show their sincerity, the owners make a reservation with the resort. In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball case, Carbolic Smoke Ball Co published an advertisement promising that their product would positively cure different diseases such as asthma, influenza, coughs, colds, whooping cough, headache and othe rs. The company further provided that they will pay a reward of 100 pounds to any person who gets influenza after using the ball for three times daily for two weeks. In order to show their sincerity, the company deposited 1000 pounds in the bank. In this case, Gaia who is a 79-year-old retiree sees the advertisement and purchase 100 tablets pack of Flu-Defeat. She continuously takes those tablets for new two months as per the instruction gave by the SuperNatural. After some time, she was diagnosed with a very serious strain of NeuroToxicia. Gaia contacted Alexander and Roxanne, owners of SuperNatural, for refunding her money, but they denied her by saying that they did not have any intention to enter into a contract. In Carlill case, Mrs Carlill purchased the smoke balls offed by the company and used them as per the directions. After some time, she caught the flu. She claimed her reward of 100 pounds, but the company rejected her by saying that it did not have an intention to enter into a valid contract with her. In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball case, the defendant argued that the advertisement was a sales puff which cannot be taken seriously and it is not possible to make an offer to the world. There is lack of notification of acceptance of the party. The wording of the advertisement was too vague in order to constitute an offer. Finally, the defendant stated that there is no consideration between parties which cannot form a valid contract. The Court of Appeal held in the judgement that Mrs Carlill was entitled to a reward because a contract has constructed between her and the company. The advertisement formed a unilateral contract between the parties which was accepted by Mrs Carlill by performing the conditions provided in the offer. Further, the court stated that the advertisement is not puffery because the company deposited 1000 pounds in the bank for showing their sincerity. The court stated that it is possible to make an offer to the world and a notification of acceptance is not required in a unilateral contract. The wording of the advertisement is capable of being resolved by the parties. The consideration is not required in a unilateral contract. The judgement of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co case applied to the case of Gaia as well. According to the principle of invitation to treat, SuperNatural invited people to enter into a contract with it by issuing a public advertisement. The company had an intention to create a legal contract because its owner book reservation with the resort to show their sincerity. The offer for contract made by the company was open for the world and any person can accept it by performing the instructions of advertisement. Gaia has given her consent through the conduct by complying with instructions of the advertisement. Notification of acceptance is not required in the case of a unilateral contract. Other essential elements of a contract are also fulfilled in the case as well. For example, both the parties are capable of entering into a valid contract. They have an intention to create a legal relationship, and they have given free consent. Gaia has accepted the offer by performing the instructions given by the SuperNatural in the advertisement. Based on the judgement of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co case, a valid contract has established between Gaia and SuperNatural because of the principle of unilateral contract and invitation to treat. Gaia can ask for the refund from SuperNatural, and the company also have to give her all-expenses-paid weekend to Sunshine Coast Resort. Conclusion In conclusion, Gaia and SuperNatural have entered into a valid contract based on the principle of invitation to treat and unilateral contract. SuperNatural has made an invitation to treat which as accepted by Gaia by complying with the terms. Gaia can sue SuperNatural because a unilateral contract has formed between the parties and SuperNatural has to refund Gaia her money and provide her all-expenses including a weekend holiday in Sunshine Coast Resort.