论文部分内容阅读
Question1
The first issue is whether Alex has a contract with the store for all used iPhone for just ?100. An invitation to treat is an invitation to be made by someone else， and a contract is formed only when offeror agrees to an acceptance （Macintyre， 2018）. In the case of Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204， the advertised the price of chicken was an invitation to treat， not an offer. The store’s slogan was similar to the previous case， so it is simply an invitation to treat. Its purpose is to promote sales. In summary， there is no contract between Alex and the store.
In this case， the second question that needs to be addressed is whether Alex should get the phone case. According to Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 525， it mentioned that advertisement sometimes was a unilateral contract. A unilateral contract definition is the contract agreement that the offeror accepts to be paid after the occurrence of a particular act （Macintyre， 2018）. In Alex’s case， the store’s expression of buying used iPhone and getting a phone case also constitutes a unilateral contract. And Alex had fulfilled these requirements， so Alex has a contract with the store. Therefore， Alex can get the phone case from the store.
The final question in case is whether there is a contract between Alex and Charles. An offer may be revoked at any time before it is accepts， but the revocation must to be accepted before acceptance is received （Macintyre， 2018）. Apparently， Charles did not withdraw his offer before Alex accepted it. So when Alex accepted Charles’ offer within a week， they had formed the contract. In addition， in the case of Stevenson， Jacques
The first issue is whether Alex has a contract with the store for all used iPhone for just ?100. An invitation to treat is an invitation to be made by someone else， and a contract is formed only when offeror agrees to an acceptance （Macintyre， 2018）. In the case of Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204， the advertised the price of chicken was an invitation to treat， not an offer. The store’s slogan was similar to the previous case， so it is simply an invitation to treat. Its purpose is to promote sales. In summary， there is no contract between Alex and the store.
In this case， the second question that needs to be addressed is whether Alex should get the phone case. According to Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 525， it mentioned that advertisement sometimes was a unilateral contract. A unilateral contract definition is the contract agreement that the offeror accepts to be paid after the occurrence of a particular act （Macintyre， 2018）. In Alex’s case， the store’s expression of buying used iPhone and getting a phone case also constitutes a unilateral contract. And Alex had fulfilled these requirements， so Alex has a contract with the store. Therefore， Alex can get the phone case from the store.
The final question in case is whether there is a contract between Alex and Charles. An offer may be revoked at any time before it is accepts， but the revocation must to be accepted before acceptance is received （Macintyre， 2018）. Apparently， Charles did not withdraw his offer before Alex accepted it. So when Alex accepted Charles’ offer within a week， they had formed the contract. In addition， in the case of Stevenson， Jacques