PROBLEM QUESTION Ming runs a hair salon called Australian Hairlines (Hairlines]. Ming decides to promote the business by advertising a 'special offer' in the local paper. The advertisement he places...

(
BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW
STUDENT NAME –
STUDENT ID –
LECTURER NAME –
PART A WORDS –

992
PART B WORDS –
998
REFEREN
CING – HARVARD
2019
)
PART A:
In the given case scenario the issue is that Ming currently has his own business of a hair salon named as Australian Hairlines. For the purpose of promoting his business he decided to promote his business in a local newspaper. The advertisement was that if any customer would visit the salon with that advertisement then haircut would be provided to them at a very low price of $10. The normal price for such haircuts was $60.
After that particular advertisement came in the newspaper, the next day around 50 people came at the salon by seeing that promotion and they wanted the haircut at $10. Although Ming gets dumbfound by such a huge reaction shown by the people and suddenly realizes that he would suffer a huge loss because of that promotion. So, he decided to call off the promotion by putting a signboard in front of his shop stating that the offer was over.
As per Australian Contract Law, there should be five elements which are essential for a contract to be legally binding (Willett, 2011). There should be an agreement between the two parties and both the parties should have the capacity and intention to enter in the contract. Moreover, a consideration should be paid and there should be certainty regarding the completion of the contract.
An advertisement is not an offer but it is just an invitation to the consumers to make an offer (McKendrick, 2014). There is no consideration involved in an advertisement and an agreement also does not exist between the parties. So, no one can sue someone just based on an advertisement. The court does not entertain such cases. But in this case the scenario is slightly different. The offer was that anyone who completes certain activity will receive a privilege.
The case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893) is a similar case (Poole, 2014). As per this case, Carbolic Smoke Ball Co used to produce Carbolic Smoke Ball so that the users of these can be contracted from influenza and other illness of same category. The company gave the advertisement that it will pay off 100 pounds rewards to any person who will contracts epidemic influenza and similar diseases by using the ball constantly for two weeks, thrice a day. The company also mentioned that 1,000 pounds was deposited in one of the bank accounts to show that the company was serious in its approach. By seeing the advertisement, Mrs Carlill used the ball as directed and caught flu. She claimed the monetary reward but the company refused. So, she sued the company.
The case went into the court and the company argued that it was just an intention and not a promise. Moreover, it was of vague nature, no consideration was received, there was no communication between them and the contract was a wagering contract, means which can be void. But the court passed the judgment in favor of Mrs Carlill. S per the judgment, the offer was universal in nature and the language was not vague. Although Mrs Carlill did not convey her intentions to the company yet she did the activities as required by the terms of the advertisement published by the company. Moreover, the consideration was the inconvenience that Mrs Carlill suffered by following the advertisement since consideration can be monetary or in kind.
This case is relevant here since there is a similarity where both the advertisements require performing some specific activity to receive benefit. Australian Contract Law also mentions that an offer can be revoked or can be withdrawn (Wright, Ellinghaus and Kelly, 2014). But an offer can be revoke only before the...