I. offeree has accepted the offer. Although revocation must

A unilateral offer is a contract whereby the
offeror makes an express promise in exchange for an act by the offeree. A unilateral
offer can be accepted through ‘acceptance by conduct’. This is evident in the
case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball1.
In this case, an advert was placed to the any person who get influenza after
using the smoke ball within a specific period in return for £100.  In addition to that, a unilateral offer can be
accepted once the offeree is satisfied with the conditions. This means that the
offeror is protected since she will only be contractually obliged to offeree,
and the offeree is protected as if she performs the act, the offeror will be
contractually obliged to pay him/her. In a unilateral offer, the condition that
the offer must be communicated to the offeror is abandoned. A unilateral offer
can be revoked in different situations. For example, a unilateral offer can be
revoked through revocation by the offeror. This can happen at any time before
the acceptance. Revocation is only effective when ‘communicated to’ the offeree.
Acting inconsistently with the offer is not enough. For example, by disposing
of the subject matter elsewhere as this simply makes the offeror unable to perform
and potentially in breach of the contract if the offeree has accepted the
offer. Although revocation must be communicated to the offeree, it need not be
communicated by the offeror. This is supported in the case of Dickinson v Dodds2
where the reliable third-party communication was enough. Also, the offer can be
revoked even where the offeror promised to keep it open. In Dickinson v Dodds, it was
also held that a promise to keep an offer open is not binding unless there is
some separate consideration for the promise to keep the offer open. This means
that the offeror can revoked the offer within the specific time limit if it has
not been validly accepted. Communication of revocation takes effect when it is received
by the offeree. This is supported in the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven3,
in which the revocation of an offer was sent by telegram and was held to be
communicated only when the telegram was received. Also, in the case of Luxor v Cooper4,
it indicates that the offeror could revoke at any time before the act of
acceptance is completed. However, the modern accepted view indicates that once
acceptance of a unilateral offer has begun, and as long as the performance is
not left incomplete or unperformed as evident in the case of Errington v Errington, the
offeror must give the offeree a reasonable chance for completion but need not
wait an unreasonably long time. Other circumstances where a unilateral offer
can be revoked are as follows: conditional offer, death or illegality.


Firstly, the issue to be assessed is whether
there were binding contracts between Crivendoe Catering (CC), Sessex Hospital
and Dougal. A contract is an agreement with particular terms between two or more
people in which there is a guarantee to do something in return for a valuable
benefit which is also known as consideration. A fundamental component of a
contract is an offer which is an expression of readiness to contract on certain
terms with the intention that an official understanding will exist once the
offer is acknowledged. ‘In contracts you do not look into the actual intent in
a man’s mind.  You look at what he said
and did.  A contract is formed when there
is, to all outward appearances, a contract. 
A man cannot get out of a contract by saying: ‘I did not intend to
contract’ if by his words he has done so’, this following quotation is
supported by the case Storer v Manchester City Council and indicates the
approach of the courts.

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

order now



B)  Negligence is when
someone who owes you a duty of care has failed to act according to a reasonable
standard of care and this has caused you damage. Negligence is for the most
part comprised of three elements which are a duty of care, the breach of duty
and causation. Before one can sue for harms in negligence, it must first be
proven that a duty of care is owed. If a duty of care isn’t proven, then no
liability can be imposed – irrespective of how reprehensible the defendant’s
conduct was or how much the claimant has suffered. The law states that if it is
reasonably foreseeable that an individual might suffer harm due to the actions
of another individual, then that person owes you a duty of care. The legitimate
test for finding out whether a lawful duty of care exists, in any given
circumstance was established through the case of Donoghue v Stevenson.
The neighbour principle developed by Lord Atkins indicates that reasonable
care must be taken in order to avoid omissions that could reasonably be foreseen
as likely to harm one’s neighbour.  When
the duty of care has been proven, determining whether the duty of care has been
breached is the next step. Breach of duty requires the defendant to have been
at blame by not satisfying their duty towards the claimant. In order to prove a
breach of duty, the courts apply a two-stage test: firstly, a question of law, the
standard of care the defendant ought to have worked out and secondly, a
question of fact and whether the defendant’s conduct fell underneath the required
standard. In the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks,
the standard of care required is that of a ‘reasonable man’, which is quite
objective. For example, in the case of Hall v Brooklands Auto-Racing
Club, the classic image of a reasonable man offered by law is ‘man
on the Clapham omnibus’. A reasonable person would consider the risk when
choosing to act in a certain way and in deciding the standard of care required.
The magnitude of risk ought to be considered. This implies considering the likelihood
that the defendant’s conduct could cause harm and how serious that harm is
likely to be. The less likely harm caused, the lower the standard of care
required. This is supported in the case of Bolton v Stone as the
risk of the injury caused by the ball was minimal. This meant that the defendant
had taken preventative measures and a reasonable person would not have expected
the damaged caused. As a result, the defendant had not breached the duty of
care as it had satisfied the standard of care required. However, ignoring minimal
risks might not always be reasonable. For example, in the case of Haley v London Electricity Board. The House of Lords concluded
that it was reasonably foreseeable that unaccompanied blind pedestrians may
walk that route and therefore the reasonable person should not ignore the risk
to blind pedestrians, especially due to the gravity of the potential injury. The
seriousness of possible damage caused ought to be considered by a reasonable
person as the more serious the damage, the more prominent the standard of care.
In the case of Paris v Stepney Borough Council, the
claimant had lost sight in one eye and the defendant was aware of this but failed
to provide protective goggles to wear at work. As a result of this, the House
of Lords found that the likelihood of the harm happening was little, but its
consequences were big. Subsequently, the defendant ought to have taken
additional care to supply googles to the claimant. The courts will consider the
practical measures the defendant could have embraced in order to avoid the
damage. The more prominent the risk of injury, the greater the need to take
precautions. In the case of Latimer v Avec Ltd, it
was concluded that the defendant took all reasonable steps to avoid the
accident in the situation. Closing down the factory was the only alternative which
would be deemed as an unpractical, unreasonable solution. The more prominent the
social utility of the defendant’s conduct, the less likely it is that the
defendant will be held to be n negligent. However, if the defendants action is
illegal, the defendant will be required to work out a high degree of care to legitimise
a little risk of harm to others. This is supported in the case of Watt v Hertfordshire County Council where the court found
that the advantage of sparing the lady caught in the accident was more prominent
that the risk of harming the fire warriors. Therefore, the defendant had satisfied
the standard of care required. Nonetheless, the nature of work of the emergency
services does not make them immune from negligence claims.


1 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 18931 Q.B. 256; (Court of Appeal)

2 Dickinsons v Dodds 18762 Ch D 463 (Court of Appeal)

3 Byrne v Van Tienhoven 18805 C.P.D. 344; (Common Pleas Divison)

4 Luxor v Cooper 1941A.C. 108 (House of Lords)