Homework Question - Bound by Advertisement?

[guccisace]

Vladimir is a successful business person. He owns the Lew Hoa Shopping Complex at Norton Place. He has several shops vacant in the complex. Vladimir’s shopping complex Managing Agents place the following notice on the Lew Hoa Shopping Complex Notice Board in Norton Place on his behalf:

“Shop available for lease. Good rates, electricity included. Contact

Vladimir, MOBILE: 005566779”.

Sasha is anxious to find a venue to sell her range of dresses. She reads the notice and telephones Vladimir seeking a meeting with him. At the meeting on June 1st Vladimir says that his terms of the lease are $1,000 per week for a 12 months lease but the tenant is to pay all outgoings including electricity. Sasha protests saying that the advertisement promised that all electricity charges would be included in the rental payment. Vladimir just shrugs his shoulders and says, “This is my offer. Go away and think about it. You had better get back to me soon by email as there is a lot of interest in the premises and I am actively looking for people as well”. Sasha leaves the meeting and goes home.

Do you consider that Sasha would succeed in a claim to the effect that Vladimir should be bound by the advertisement on the Notice Board? Illustrate your answer with decided common law cases, providing the basis of your reasoning.

Mainly need help on what is the relevant law to be applied. Thanks!

 

[Victoria S]

What subject is this for? Contract law?

 

[guccisace]

Yep, this is contract law.

 

[guccisace]

Bump. Sorry guys, but I'm really stuck on this one! Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Victoria S]

Go to your textbook and look at the cases referenced in relation to offer, acceptance, certainty and consideration.
In practice, I doubt her claim would succeed, particularly in relation to offer (in that one could argue his advertisement was merely an invitation to treat), certainty and consideration.

Here's a useful website that references the relevant cases against each element: Australian Contract Law | Julie Clarke

I hope you find it helpful - I did.

 

[AnnaLJ]

From a quick look at this, I think that the following has occurred (which you should back up with cases from your lecture or tutorial notes).

Vladimir's advertisement in paper: An offer capable of acceptance
Vladimir's meeting with Sasha: Vladimir arguably withdrew his first offer (though issues with his communication/notice of withdrawal) and issued a fresh offer, capable of acceptance.
As Sasha hadn't accepted the first offer before it was withdrawn, there is no breach of contract. There may be some issues to raise around 'reliance' and damages suffered as a result of reliance. Though these might be difficult to sustain. Worth raising for some extra marks though.

So in summary, from a contractual perspective, Vladimir may not be bound by the original offer/advertisement. However, there may be other implications under Australian Consumer Law for misrepresentation etc.

 

[guccisace]

Cheers for the responses! You guys really helped me