Introduction
This essay examines whether a valid contract exists between Brent, the operator of the ‘Avast Me Hearties’ escape room, and Dawn, a participant who completed the room in under 30 minutes but was denied the £1,000 prize. Using the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) structure, the analysis will focus on the principles of contract law, specifically the elements required for a valid unilateral contract, the implications of Tim’s actions in booking under his name, and the malfunction of the whistle as a condition of completion. Relevant legislation and case law will be applied to assess whether Brent is legally obliged to pay the prize to Dawn. The essay aims to provide a logical argument supported by legal principles while considering the limitations of the parties’ agreement.
Issue
The central issue is whether Brent’s advertisement constitutes a unilateral contract offer that Dawn accepted by completing the escape room in under 30 minutes, and whether Brent’s refusal to pay based on Tim’s non-participation and the whistle malfunction is legally justified.
Rule
Under English contract law, a valid contract requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations. Advertisements promising a reward for completing a specific act, as in Brent’s case, are typically construed as unilateral contracts. The landmark case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 established that a unilateral offer is made when a reward is promised for performing a specific act, and acceptance occurs through performance of that act. Consideration is provided by the act itself, and intention is inferred from the explicit promise of a reward. Additionally, under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, third parties may enforce a contract if it expressly benefits them, though this may not directly apply to Dawn as she was not named in the booking.
Application
Applying these principles, Brent’s advertisement in the local newspaper offering £1,000 to any customer who completes the ‘Avast Me Hearties’ escape room in under 30 minutes by blowing the ship’s whistle appears to constitute a unilateral offer. As in Carlill, the offer is open to anyone who performs the specified act, and acceptance is completed by performance. Dawn, despite not being the named booker, performed the act by solving the puzzles within the time limit. However, two complications arise.
Firstly, Tim booked the room in his name for one person and covertly allowed Dawn to participate. Brent might argue that Dawn was not a legitimate participant, as the contract was with Tim. Yet, the advertisement specifies “any customer,” and does not explicitly limit participation to the named booker. This broad wording suggests that Dawn’s performance could still constitute acceptance, regardless of Tim’s booking. Nevertheless, Brent could counter that Tim’s deception breached an implied term of good faith, though such a term is not universally upheld in English law unless explicitly stated.
Secondly, the whistle malfunctioned when Dawn attempted to blow it, failing to produce sound. Brent argues that the condition of “blowing the ship’s whistle” was not met. However, Dawn’s attempt with mere seconds left, and the immediate breaking of the rope, indicate that the failure was due to a fault in Brent’s equipment, not her performance. Case law such as Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566 suggests that a party cannot rely on their own failure to avoid contractual obligations. Therefore, Brent’s refusal to acknowledge completion seems unreasonable, as Dawn did everything within her control to fulfill the condition.
Finally, Brent’s argument that Tim did not contribute to solving the puzzles is irrelevant, as the advertisement does not stipulate personal performance by the named booker. The focus is on the act of completion, which Dawn achieved. While Brent may feel misled by Tim’s actions, this does not negate the unilateral contract formed by Dawn’s performance.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a valid unilateral contract likely exists between Brent and Dawn, as established by the principles in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Dawn’s completion of the escape room within 30 minutes, despite the whistle malfunction and Tim’s deceptive booking, arguably fulfills the terms of Brent’s offer. The malfunction, being outside Dawn’s control, should not invalidate her performance, and the advertisement’s broad wording encompasses her as a participant. Thus, Brent is likely obliged to pay the £1,000 prize. However, the ambiguity surrounding Tim’s booking and potential implied terms of participation could provide Brent with limited grounds for defence. This case highlights the complexities of unilateral contracts in promotional contexts and the need for clear terms in such offers.
References
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256.
- Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. UK Legislation.
- Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566.
- Poole, J. (2016) Textbook on Contract Law. 13th ed. Oxford University Press.
