2 Daniel Coates
Tutorial 2- Hair-R-Us
Main Legal Issue
To establish whether Hair-R-Us are legally bound to pay the $5000 dollars to either Mr George Hearn or Mr Max Chapman there must be a valid legally enforceable contract between the parties. There are three main issues to consider when looking at the Hair-R-Us case. The first issue to consider is whether there was an offer made by Hair-R-Us or if the advertisement was merely an invitation to treat[footnoteRef:1]. Secondly, it must be established if either Mr George Hearn or Mr Max Chapman effectively and unequivocally accepted the offer. Thirdly, the legitimacy of the revocation must be determined as the revocation is the determining factor in payment. [1: Gibson v Manchester City Council  1 All ER 972.]
Was There an Offer
The advertisement placed in the newspaper by Hair-R-Us was a unilateral offer. As the advertisement states that a $5000 reward will be paid by Hair-R-Us to any person who does not gain a thicker head of hair after taking the tablets as directed. This corresponds directly with the definition of unilateral contract which states, ‘a unilateral contract is constituted by a promise for an act’. [footnoteRef:2] With the promise being a thicker head of hair and the act being taking the tablets as directed. For a unilateral offer to be accepted the offeree must perform the actions that the offer states.[footnoteRef:3] Both Mr George Hearn and Mr Max Chapman effectively accepted the offer as they both took the tablets as directed and the acceptance of a unilateral offer is also executed consideration for the promise.[footnoteRef:4] [2: Peter Radan and John Gooley, Principles of Australian Contract Law (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2nd ed, 2010) 8.] [3: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co  2 QB 484.] [4: Radan and Gooley, Above n 3.]
However, the advertisement could be seen as an invitation to treat. This would mean both Mr George Hearn and Mr Max Chapman offer to buy the Hairylicious product from Hair-R-Us and Hair-R-Us accept the...