The decision at first instance
5. Mr Burch’s claim failed on the following grounds:
(a) The advertisement was not an offer to sell the suite in question to any specific person. (b) Even if the advertisement did constitute such an offer, it had been withdrawn before acceptance via the television programme On The Go.
(c) Despite the first two grounds, the company had sold the suite to someone who had entered the store before Mr Burch, so there could be no breach of contract even if the aforementioned grounds were wrong.
6. Mr Burch now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds: (a) An advertisement of the type broadcast on behalf of Somnia Chairs plc on March 3rd was a contractual offer.
(b) Such an offer cannot be withdrawn after a legitimate offeree has begun to accept, and any revocation of such an offer must be communicated reasonably in the circumstances, which was not so in the instant case.
(c) An offer such as broadcast on behalf of Somnia Chairs plc on March 3rd is subject to an implied term that is open only to bona fide customers and not to employees of the advertising company. SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT
1. It is possible to make an offer to the world at large. If there is an exchange of a promise and a condition of performing a specific act, the offer would constitute an offer to enter into a unilateral contract. In unilateral contracts there is no requirement for the offeree to communicate an intention to accept, since only full performance of an explicitly specified act will amount to acceptance: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball  1 QB 256 CA; Petterson v Pattberg 161 N.E. 428 (N.Y. 1928)
2. The advertisement on the regional TV on behalf of the Somnia Chairs amounted to a unilateral offer as there was a promise to sell the suite for £600 dependent upon the condition to be the first person to enter the store on March 3rd. Mr Burch was not obliged to inform the Somnia Chairs about his intention...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document