A further letter threatening court action

We can also see from the problem that both James and Kate can claim the offered by Detox Ltd. James as he is suffering ill affect due to the use of the sure quit smoking cure. It also states that it can be "any" ill affect what so ever. It does not specify any particular illnesses. This has been confirmed by a qualified member of the medical profession who has stated that not only that it could be attributable to the "Sure Quit" smoking cure but that it is. Therefore following the literal wording of Detox Ltd's offer we can see that James can claim as long it is found that there was an offer to take up in the first place.

Kate has suffered no ill affects but has failed to give up smoking after a three month period. The fact that she now smokes more seems to show the cure does not work very well but we are more concerned with the wording of Detox Ltd's offer which states "Failed to stop smoking" which she has. The offer clearly states that anyone can claim i?? 500 from the company if they either suffer ill affects or fail to quit smoking. Kate has failed on the latter of these therefore she can claim the money offered. Detox Ltd could argue that the offer has lapsed. From the text we can see that Detox placed several advertisements for their product in January.

We notice further on that James reads the offer in an old issue of Fly Fishing Weekly. Could the offer have lapsed by now? In the case of Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) LR 1 Ex 109 Montefiore wanted to buy shares in Ramsgate. Several months passed after the original offer to buy the shares had been communicated. Montefiore no longer wanted the shares. In court it was held that a too greater time period had passed for Ramsgate to sell the shares if Montefiore no longer wanted them. In this case I still believe the offer was open, as the offer was not revoked until August.

It could be argued just as well that Detox were not going to accept anymore offers due to the time lapse and that it had just not communicated the information. Montefiore no longer wanted the shares yet he did not communicate it to the company until they contacted him. After both James and Kate wrote to Detox Ltd independently they received letters stating the offered had been withdrawn. In general the withdrawal of an offer must be brought to the notice of the offeree. Neither James nor Kate saw the notice of revocation in the magazine but does this mean that they cannot sue.

I believe that they still could bring to court the proceedings due to the fact that the revocation occurred after the start of the required task In conclusion I would state that both James and Kate have a very good case against Detox Ltd. I believe that they would win a court case. There are many precedents that have been set in previous case that would work very well in favour for both James and Kate. This case also has some very similar elements to other cases that have already been decided in the past.

So I would suggest to both James and Kate to go ahead with legal proceedings to claim the 500 that they are entitled to if the company fail to pay them after a further letter threatening court action. As for the matter of whether my advice would change or not if the notice of revocation had appeared in May rather than August I have written as follows. I believe if this were the case then neither James nor Kate would be able to bring a case against Detox Ltd, as the notice of revocation would have been broadcast before the claimants had taken up the offer. As long as the revocation was noted in the same communication channel and with the same publicity as the original offer then the offer has been revoked.

This is still the case regardless of whether or not either James or Kate saw the advertisement in the publication in question. Also if the revocation of the offer had appeared in the publication in May, James and Kate would not have started the prescribed course as this was started in June. As I have come to the conclusion that this is a unilateral contract because the claimants would not have taken up the offer they cannot claim due to the fact that they had not started to perform the act required of them to claim before the revocation of the offer.