Is there an agreement between “SuperNatural” and Gaia?
As a general rule, an agreement consists of an offer plus acceptance of that offer.
A person makes an offer when they express a willingness to immediately enter into a contract
with the person to whom the offer is directed. An offer can be made to the world at ‘large’:
Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co  1 QB 256. An invitation to treat (an invitation to
another person to make an offer) is not an offer.
The agreement is generally not complete until the offeree communicates their acceptance to
the offeror: Powell v Lee (1908) 99 LT 284. An exception to this general rule occurs in the
case of a unilateral contract. The offeree’s acceptance and performance are the same thing in
a unilateral contract. It is not necessary for the offeree to communicate acceptance prior to
performance: Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co  1 QB 256.
The wording of the flyer did make it clear that “SuperNatural” was willing to enter into legal
relations with anyone who accepted the offer of the reward. The reference to the fact that
“SuperNatural” which was owned by the Alexander and Roxanne have already made these
arrangements with a 5 star Noosa Resort as a demonstration of their sincerity supports this
(similar to Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co).
As such, the flyer was an offer to the world at large and not merely an invitation to treat.
This is a unilateral contract because there is a valid offer by “SuperNatural” to the general
public, and gave consideration when she purchased and used the “Flu-Defeat” tablets as
directed. Gaia did not need to communicate acceptance prior to performance.
On the balance of probability, a court would likely to decide that there is an agreement
between Gaia and “SuperNatural” because……….
Is there a legally binding contract between “SuperNatural” and Gaia? Or not?
A contract is an agreement between two or more people that is legally enforceable.
The essential elements of a legally binding contract are:
1. Parties must have ...