Question

(a) One day, Mary went to a boutique and tried on a dress displayed on the shelf of the
shop. Then, she felt that the dress was not very comfortable and put it back on the
shelf. However, the salesperson insisted Mary needed to pay for the dress because
she already had a contract with the shop.
Peter is the shopkeeper of a pet shop. Last week, Peter lost one of his Persian cats
when taking it for bathing at his shop. He immediately put up a notice on the wall
of his pet shop stating a reward of $1,000 for return of his cat. Recently, when Mary
walked along the street, she found Peter’s lost cat accidentally. Luckily, the cat
wore a necklace with details of Peter’s name and shop address. After Mary returned
the cat to Peter, she discovered the notice on the wall and demanded the reward of
$1,000.
Required:
(i) Advise Mary whether she is legally bound to buy the dress in the boutique. You
are required to cite a relevant case in your explanation.
(ii) Advise Peter whether he is legally bound to pay the reward to Mary. You are
required to cite a relevant case in your explanation.
(b) Ada contracted with Brian to repair her car for $5,000 and to complete the work
within one week. Later, Brian told her that the repair work was very sophisticated
and Ada promised to pay him an extra amount of $500.
Required:
Advise Brian whether Ada is legally bound to pay him the extra amount of $500.
You are required to cite relevant case(s) in your explanation.

Answer 1

a)

i) Mary is not legally bound to buy the dress in the boutique. Because the display of dress in the boutique merely constitutes an invitation to offer by the owner and not an offer. Mary selected that particular dress, that was when the offer was made. Here the offeror is Mary. An offer only when accepted by both parties will become a contract. When the owner of the boutique accepts the offer made by Mary, it will be a contract. Only then Mary will be liable to pay the money. Thus the act of trying the dress is only an offer and doesn't constitute any contract between Mary and the boutique.

A case of an invitation to offer is

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs Boots Cash Chemists( Southern) Ltd,1953

ii) Peter is not legally bound to pay a reward to Mary. Mary returned the cat without knowing about the offer made by Peter. It was only after returning the cat that she came to know about the offer and claimed it. Mary was ignorant of the offer of reward and therefore is not entitled to receive the reward.

However, if Mary had prior knowledge about the offer and thus found the cat, Peter would have been liable to pay Mary the same.

In this given case, Peter has no legal liability to fulfill the reward.

Lalman Shukla vs. Gauri Dutt of 1913 is a case law dealing with a similar situation.

B)  

This is the case of executory consideration. That is, the consideration is not paid but promised.

Ada has the liability to pay the extra money for repairs. Here when Brian claimed the extra money for sophisticated work, Ada agreed to pay him the same. Thus there was an oral contract between the two of them. There fore Ada has the contractual obligation to pay $500 to Brian for the extra works done.

Chinmaya Vs Ramayya, 1882 is a case law dealing with executory consideration.