Good's Advertisement

1. Ambiguity of the terms of the offer and invalidity of contract

For a valid offer, it must be a definite promise including all the necessary details and serious intention to be bound by such promise. The term of Good's advertisement is not definite enough. Good's promise was to pay half of the advertisement fee for whom placed an advertisement with the intention of "initiating major legal response to raise climate change consciousness of the people of Hong Kong". Such requirement does not include all the necessary details like the length of advertisement, format, exact topic etc. should not be considered as valid offer (Koo Ming Kown v Next Media Ltd [1998])1

The term of Good's offer was uncertain and not definite. Hence, it should not be counted as an offer, therefore the contract made between Good and Concern was invalid. The advertisement should be considered as invitation to treat only.

2.Invalidity of contractual obligation to comply the terms of contract

Given if there is a valid contract binding between Good and Concern, the critical point now comes to whether the article written by Concern is correspond to Good's requirement of placing an advertisement with intention of "initiating major legal response to raise climate change consciousness of the people of Hong Kong".

Concern's advertisement is about environment protection, which is not directly corresponding to "climate change". And "debate in schools and universities" is difficult to "create legal intention: too. It depends on how the judges see the wordings. (Koo Ming Kown v Next Media Ltd [1998]2) If the court considers Concern's advertisement's intention is not strong enough to comply the terms of contract, Concern is not complying with the terms of offer by Good.

3. Validity of Concern's acceptance of the offer given the offer is valid

To be binding, an acceptance of the offer must be actually communicated to the offeror. But there is exception when the terms of the offer show that it may be accepted by performance. Placing advertisement on the newspaper can be a conduct of acceptance (Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.[1893]3, Lobley Co Ltd & Another v Tsang Yuk Kiu [1997]4)

Good's offer was made to the public and Concern tended to place advertisement on the newspaper to accept the offer. Thus, it means, Concern needs not to inform Good for his acceptance to form a contract. Once Concern complies the term of offer, a contract is bind. Neglecting the fact that Concern did not read Good's offer directly, Concern's act could be a possible acceptance.

Conclusion

Although the conduct of placing advertisement by Concern could be considered as acceptance (given if the offer is unilateral) but, to be ultimate, Good's advertisement

is not a valid unilateral offer because of the uncertain terms so no contract if formed. Besides, Concern's advertisement might be viewed as fail to meet the contractual obligation even if there is a legally binding.

Therefore, Concern is difficult to claim back half of the advertisement fee from Good because there is no valid contract between them.

Part B (a)

Fact

Dec 1 - Candy