Introduction
This essay seeks to develop a structured presentation for a Level 100 law student on the principles of contract law, using the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) framework to analyse a specific scenario involving an offer and revocation. The context is based on a hypothetical case in which an individual, Roger, makes a public offer of a £500,000 charitable donation for swimming the English Channel in under 12 hours, only to later attempt revocation. While the primary legal framework will draw on common law principles of contract formation in the UK, reference will also be made to Ghana’s 1992 Constitution to explore any relevant parallels or contrasts in legal principles, particularly concerning fundamental rights and obligations that might influence contractual agreements. The aim is to present a clear and logical analysis suitable for a beginner law student, focusing on whether Roger’s revocation was valid and if alternative methods of revocation could apply.
Issue: Validity of Roger’s Revocation
The central issue in this scenario is whether Roger’s revocation of the £500,000 offer, made online after Ryan had begun swimming the Channel, is legally valid under contract law principles. In contract law, an offer can create a unilateral contract when accepted through performance. Here, Roger’s public challenge arguably constitutes a unilateral offer, which raises the question of when acceptance occurs and whether revocation is permissible once performance has commenced.
Rule: Legal Principles of Unilateral Contracts and Revocation
Under UK contract law, a unilateral contract arises when an offeror promises a reward for the completion of a specified act, and acceptance is achieved through performance (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, 1893). Importantly, once the offeree begins performance, the offeror is generally precluded from revoking the offer, as this would undermine the reasonable expectations of the offeree who has relied on the promise (Errington v Errington and Woods, 1952). Furthermore, revocation must be communicated effectively to be valid, ideally through the same medium as the original offer if it was made publicly. In the context of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, while contract law is primarily governed by common law and statutes, constitutional provisions such as Article 17 (equality before the law) could indirectly influence interpretations of fairness in contractual dealings, though direct application to private contracts is limited.
Application: Analysing Roger’s Actions
Applying the rules to Roger’s case, his online announcement of a £500,000 reward for swimming the Channel in under 12 hours constitutes a unilateral offer. Ryan’s act of swimming, having reached halfway in under 4 hours, indicates commencement of performance, which, under UK law, typically binds Roger to maintain the offer (Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd, 1978). Roger’s subsequent online revocation, while using the same medium, appears invalid as it was made after Ryan had already begun performing the act. Indeed, courts often protect the offeree’s reliance in such scenarios, suggesting Roger cannot escape liability simply due to financial hardship. In a Ghanaian context, while the 1992 Constitution does not directly govern contracts, principles of fairness under Article 23 (administrative justice) might encourage a similar protective stance towards Ryan, though this is speculative and not binding in private law.
Alternative Methods of Revocation
If Roger’s revocation is deemed invalid due to Ryan’s commenced performance, other potential methods of revocation must be considered. For instance, an offer can lapse if a specified time limit expires, though no such limit beyond six months was clearly communicated here. Alternatively, revocation could occur if the offeror’s incapacity or death renders performance impossible, but Roger’s financial difficulties do not meet this threshold. Therefore, no clear alternative revocation mechanism applies in this scenario under UK law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, using the IRAC framework, Roger’s revocation of the £500,000 reward appears invalid under UK contract law, as Ryan had already commenced performance, thereby accepting the unilateral offer. The principles from cases like Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) suggest that Roger is bound to honour the offer despite his financial constraints. Furthermore, no alternative revocation methods appear applicable in this context. While Ghana’s 1992 Constitution provides a backdrop of fairness and equality, its direct relevance to private contractual disputes remains limited. For a Level 100 law student, this analysis underscores the importance of understanding unilateral contracts and the binding nature of offers once performance begins, highlighting the need for clarity and caution in making public promises.
References
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) 1 QB 256.
- Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd (1978) Ch 231.
- Errington v Errington and Woods (1952) 1 KB 290.
- Ghana Constitution (1992) Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
