Introduction
This essay explores the legal complexities surrounding the revival of a unilateral offer made to the whole world, particularly when offerees have expressed an intention to accept and incurred costs in the process. Unilateral offers, often seen in reward cases, create unique challenges in contract law due to their public nature and the potential for multiple acceptors. The discussion will focus on key principles of offer and acceptance under English contract law, examining whether an offeror can revive a withdrawn offer and the implications of costs incurred by offerees. By analysing relevant case law and academic commentary, this essay aims to provide a broad understanding of the issue while considering the fairness and practicality of legal outcomes.
Unilateral Offers and the Concept of Revival
A unilateral offer, as defined in cases such as Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256, involves a promise made by an offeror to the whole world, which can be accepted by performing the stipulated act. Once such an offer is made, the question arises whether it can be revoked or revived after withdrawal. Generally, an offeror can revoke an offer before acceptance, provided the revocation is communicated effectively. However, in unilateral contracts, revocation becomes contentious if offerees have begun performance. As Errington v Errington [1952] 1 KB 290 suggests, an offeror may be estopped from revoking an offer if the offeree has relied on it to their detriment.
Reviving a withdrawn unilateral offer introduces additional complexity. There is limited direct authority on whether an offeror can reinstate an offer after revocation, especially to the whole world. Arguably, revival could be interpreted as a new offer, subject to the same principles of communication and acceptance. Yet, this raises concerns about consistency and fairness, particularly if certain offerees have already acted in reliance on the initial offer. The lack of specific case law on revival underscores the need for broader judicial or statutory guidance in this area.
Impact of Disclosed Intention and Incurred Costs
When offerees disclose an intention to accept a unilateral offer and incur costs, the principle of promissory estoppel may come into play. This doctrine, as established in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130, prevents an offeror from going back on a promise if the offeree has relied on it to their detriment. For instance, if individuals have spent money or effort in pursuit of a reward, revoking and subsequently reviving the offer without acknowledging prior reliance could be deemed unjust. However, promissory estoppel typically applies to bilateral agreements, and its application to unilateral offers remains less clear.
Moreover, in cases involving offers to the whole world, the sheer number of potential acceptors complicates the issue. If some offerees have incurred costs, does the offeror owe them a duty upon revival? The absence of direct contractual obligation before acceptance suggests they do not, yet ethical considerations and the potential for legal reform must be acknowledged. Academic commentary, such as that of Treitel (2015), highlights the tension between legal certainty and fairness in such scenarios, suggesting that courts may need to balance strict contractual principles with equitable remedies.
Practical and Legal Limitations
Reviving a unilateral offer also poses practical challenges. Communicating a revival effectively to the whole world, as required in Carlill, may be logistically difficult, especially if the original offer was widely publicised. Furthermore, distinguishing between those who acted on the initial offer and new acceptors could create administrative burdens. From a legal perspective, courts might view revival with scepticism, as it risks undermining trust in contractual dealings. Indeed, without clear guidelines, offerors could exploit revival mechanisms to manipulate offerees, as cautioned by Stone (2013).
Conclusion
In conclusion, while it may be theoretically possible for an offeror to revive a unilateral offer made to the whole world, significant legal and practical hurdles exist. The principles of offer and acceptance, coupled with doctrines like promissory estoppel, suggest that revival could be treated as a new offer, but the reliance and costs incurred by offerees complicate the matter. English law currently lacks definitive authority on this issue, leaving room for judicial interpretation or legislative intervention. Ultimately, fairness to offerees who have acted on the original offer must be weighed against the offeror’s autonomy, highlighting the need for a nuanced approach to ensure both legal certainty and equity in contract law.
References
- Stone, R. (2013) The Modern Law of Contract. 10th edn. Routledge.
- Treitel, G. H. (2015) The Law of Contract. 14th edn. Sweet & Maxwell.
[Word count: 614]
