CCL Assignment – Problem solving
Mengqi Sun
-------------------------------------------------
17636587 1. Issue
There are basically 2 issues in this case shown as following: (i) Whether there is a legally binding contract between Wacko and the Darebin City Council? If there is, how much should Wacko claim for prize money? (ii) Is there a legal binding contract between Leecher and Darebin City Council? If there is, how much should Leecher claim for the prize money?

2. Principles (i) Offer
An offer is a legally binding promise made by one party (the offeror) to another party (the offeree). Once offers have been accepted, offeror cannot revoke it. The advertisement Darebin City Council posted is an offer can be made to the world at large and is able to be accepted by anybody in the word. In other word, this advertisement is also a unilateral contract is a contract where the offeror makes an offer to the offeree in return for an act. Followings are examples of a unilateral contract which courts agreed. * Advertisement that amount to an offer made to the whole world at large; * Offers of rewards; (The major precedent is the R v Clarke case ) * Acceptance.

(ii) Acceptance of the offer:
The act of acceptance will occur when the offeree performs acts that are consistent with the terms of offer. Only when both parties have given their mutual consent does the law consider a binding legal contract to have been formed.
Performance of an act (unilateral contract) is a method of acceptance. Importantly, silence and ignorance of the offer are not included in acceptance. In this case, Leecher’s ignorance of the offer cannot be included in an acceptance so there is no contract between him and Darebin City Council.

3. Application (i) Wacko and Darebin contract:
There was an offer made by Darebin Council and this offer was accepted by Wacko.
Darebin city council’s offer is an offer to the whole world. The application of words using, along with the actions required, made a clear commitment to pay $5000 to anybody who caught “Nemo”.
When Darebin Council posted the advertisement to offer prize money, the offer can be accepted by anyone in the world. In this case, Wacko became an offeree after he went to catch “Nemo” to win the prize. Thus, a binding legal contract has been formed at the time of the Wacko agrees the behavior of catching “Nemo”, as a unilateral contract formed. This scenario has occurred in some cases and the court has made a judgment about whether advertisement to offer a prize could have legally binding with a person.

After Wacko caught “Nemo”, Clive told him that there was a mistake about prize money. Wacko has the right and should claim for $5000. The reason is, as Wacko had a legal binding contract with Darebin Council, Wacko should follow every words in the posted advertisement to claim the wrong prize money amount. As Wacko did not promise Clive to claim corrected prize money, there is no contract between Wacko and the new offer Clive provided.

(ii) Leecher and Darebin Contract
Leecher did not know the advertisement Darebin City Council posted and any items from the advertisement. When Leecher caught “Nemo”, there was no acceptance by him of the Darebin City Council’s offer. Thus there was no binding offer between them. Leecher had acted ignorance when he fished “Nemo” and before his friend Grady told him the prize money. When provides this information to Darebin City Council, Leecher cannot claim for any prize money.
The same situation occurred in a few cases, since the courts can always provide the result of judgment that there is no contract between both parties if the offeree performed ignorance of the advertisement.
Therefore, Leecher has no right to claim for prize money neither $500 nor $5000.

4. Conclusion
The most likely outcome is that there is a legal binding contract between Wacko and the Darebin City Council, and Wacko should claim $5000 for prize money. However, there is probably no contract between Leecher and Darebin City Council because of his ignorance of the advertisement, thus, he cannot claim for prize money.

Reference 1. Ciro, T., Goldwasser, V. and Verma, R. 2011. Law and Business, 3rd edition. Oxford University Press. 2. Enright, C. 2012. How to Answer a Problem Question. 2nd edition. Maitland Press, Newcastle 3. Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc. and Melbourne Journal of International Law Inc. 2010. Australian Guide to Legal Citation. 3rd edition. Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc and Melbourne Journal of International Law Inc. 4. Verma, R. 2014 Semester 1. Problem-solving Format, Lecture Notes. LST5CCL La trobe University. 5. Vickery, R and Pendleton, W. 2003. Australian Business Law: Principles & Application. Pearson Education Australia Ltd.

--------------------------------------------
[ 2 ]. Tony Ciro, Vivien Goldwasser and Reeta Verma, Law and business (Oxford University Express, 3rd edition, 2011) 60.
[ 3 ]. Ibid 63.
[ 4 ]. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1983] 1 QB 256.
[ 5 ]. In R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227, the police and court thought that there is no contract between both parties as the ignorance of act is not a valid offer acceptance.
[ 6 ]. Ciro, Goldwasser and Verma, above n1, 73.
[ 7 ]. Ibid 74
[ 8 ]. Ibid 77
[ 9 ]. Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CBNS 869; 142 ER 1037.
[ 10 ]. ibid n4
[ 11 ]. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1983] 1 QB 256, the Court of UK commented that that an valid offer has been made and accepted, as the wording of the advertisement made a clear promise and the offeree completed all actions.
[ 12 ]. In R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227, ibid n4.