Brief facts.
Katende Michael went into an agreement with Babirye Rose who is well known for supplying
gentlemen shoes, had written a poster and shared it into the Business law whatsap group she
clearly put prices on every shoe and Katende picked a green in color shoe, upon contacting Sarah
physically she told Katende that the shoe costs 250,000/- not 150000/- , he now demanding
compensation of 50,000 where Sarah has refused to pay this money.
Legal issues.
Whether Katende Michael had a valid contract between Babirye Rose and Sarah.
Law applicable.
The 1995 constitution of the republic of Uganda as amended.
The contract Act 2010
Case law
Resolution
Issue 1; whether Katende Michael has any civil or legal action against Babirye Rose or Sarah
Where goods or services are advertised, does this constitute an offer or an invitation to treat? It
would be possible here for the law also to base its principles on ‘party freedom’: that is, a person
putting forward an advertisement should not be taken to be waiving the right as to whom he or
she chooses to contract with. In fact, however, the cases in this area show the courts adopting an
approach based on pragmatism, rather than on the ‘party freedom’ principle. The answer to the
question ‘is this advertisement an offer?’ will generally be determined by the context in which
the advertisement appears, and the practical consequences of treating it as either an offer or an
invitation to treat. Generally speaking, an advertisement on a hoarding, a newspaper ‘display’ or
a television commercial will not be regarded as an offer.1 Thus, in Harris v Nickerson, the
defendant had advertised that an auction of certain furniture was to take place on a certain day.
The plaintiff travelled to the auction only to find that the items in which he was interested had,
without notice, been withdrawn. He brought an action for breach of contract to recover his
1
Richard Stone Modern Law of Contract Seventh Edition at page 51
expenses in attending the advertised event. His claim was rejected by the Queen’s Bench. The
advertisement did not give rise to any contract that all the items mentioned would actually be put
up for sale.2
Blackburn J felt, be ‘a startling proposition’ and ‘excessively inconvenient if carried out’. It
would amount to saying that ‘anyone who advertises a sale by publishing an advertisement
becomes responsible to everybody who attends the sale for his cab hire or travelling expenses’.3
Sarah has a right refused to pay this money since since she was a third party to the a offer made
to Katende Michael
The rule in English law is that only the parties to the contract may enforce the contract against
each other, even if the contract was entered into with the sole intention of benefiting or imposing
liabilities on a third party.4 The rule was confirmed as being part of English law in the nineteenth
century. However, the modern authority for the rule is said to be the decision of the House of
Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v Selfridge & Co. Ltd [1915] AC 847 where
Viscount Haldane LC stated:
“In the law of England certain principles are fundamental. One is that only a person who is a
party to a contract can sue on it. Our law knows nothing of a jus quae situm tertio arising by
way of contract. Such a right may be conferred by way of property, as, for example, under a
trust, but it cannot be conferred on a stranger to a contract as a right to enforce the contract in
personam. A second principle is that if a person with whom a contract not under a seal has been
made is to be able to enforce it consideration must have been given by him to the promisor or to
some other person at the promisor’s request.”5
Brief facts.
2
(1873) LR 8 QB 286; (1873) 42 LJ QB 171.
3
(1873) LR 8 QB 286, p 288.
4
Paul Richard contract law 11th edition page 461
5
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v Selfridge & Co. Ltd [1915] AC 847
Nanyanzi Joeria lost her national identity card, she put a notice up promising a reward of one
million shillings, Bagonza Violet found the national identity card and now she is claiming the
reward of money, Nanyanzi has refused to give her this money saying they are roommates.
Legal issues.
Whether Nanyanzi Joeria is liable for the offer she made.
Law applicable.
The 1995 constitution of the republic of Uganda as amended
Contract Act 2010
Case law
Resolution.
Issue 1.Whether Nanyanzi Joeria is liable for the offer she made
Under section 8 of the contract Act 2010 stipulates that;
“The performance of the condition to an offer or acceptance of any consideration for a
reciprocal promise which may be offered is acceptance of the offer”
An offer is an expression of a willingness to contract on certain terms made with the intention
that a binding agreement will exist once the offer is accepted.6
In the now famous case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256, it was argued
that it was not possible to make an offer to the world at large.7
In this case the plaintiff bought a medical preparation called ‘The Carbolic Smoke Ball’ on the
basis that the defendants advertised that they would pay £100 to any person who contracted
influenza after using the smoke ball in the prescribed manner and for a specified period. Further,
the defendants stated that ‘to show their sincerity’ they had deposited £1,000 with the Alliance
Bank. The plaintiff bought one of the smoke balls and used it in the manner prescribed and
promptly caught influenza! She sued for the £100. The defendants contended that there was no
agreement between them and used considerable ingenuity in promoting this contention. One of
6
Paul Richard contract law 11th edition page
7
Ibid at page 2
the defense used was that it was not possible to make an offer to the whole world since this
would enable the whole world to accept the offer, which was clearly beyond the realms of
commercial reality. The Court of Appeal had no difficulty in rejecting this defense. Bowen LJ
stated the position very clearly as follows:
“It was also said that the contract is made with the whole world – that is, with everybody and
that you cannot contract with everybody. It is not a contract made with all the world. There is
the fallacy of the argument. It is an offer made to all the world; and why should not an offer be
made to all the world which is to ripen into a contract with anybody who comes forward and
performs the condition? . . . Although the offer is made to the world, the contract is made with
that limited portion of the public who come forward and perform the condition on the faith of the
advertisement.”8
REFERENCE
Statute.
8
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256
Contract Act 2010
Case law
(1873) LR 8 QB 286; (1873) 42 LJ QB 171.
(1873) LR 8 QB 286, p 288.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v Selfridge & Co. Ltd [1915] AC 847
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256
Text book.
Modern Law of Contract Richard Stone Seventh Edition
Contract law Paul Richard 11th edition
