Jimmy vs Massive Freak Drink Co - Essay Example

Name Course Lecturer Date Jimmy vs. Massive Freak Drink Co A contract is a formal agreement between two parties; the agreement can be enforceable or unenforceable depending on the terms of the contract and depending on a number of legal reasons. There are some reasons that make a contract to be voidable such as the actions of one party or both parties in a contract to disclose some material facts, misrepresentation of fraud, a mistake, duress or undue influence, incapacity of a party to enter in to a contract, terms that are unconscionable or even a breach of contract. These terms makes a contract to be voidable. It is very important to note that voidable contracts can be rejected legally by one party in a contract, it is also said to have a defect. If a party with power to reject a contract due to defects opts not to reject it, then the contract becomes valid and enforceable despite the defect (Yin & Tung, 1997 p. 213). For a contract to be legally binding, the following six elements must be fulfilled. One, there must exist an agreement. An agreement is the offer and acceptance. Two, there must be consideration. Consideration is the supply of services, property, money or anything that suffice as consideration. This can be money or a promise to undertake or not undertake certain act. Third, the capacity to enter in to legal relations, this means that the parties to a contract must be of legal age and of sound mind. Four, there must be intentions by the parties to enter in to legal relations, intentions are important as they imply that no party was forced in to entering in to the contract. Five, formalities, however, they need not be represented in writing. The last is certainty. These six elements are essential in a legally binding contract (Simpson & Brian, 1995). In this case, an offer is made and one party accepts the offer. Massive Freak Drink Co made an offer and Jimmy accepted the offer. Massive Freak Drink Co made an offer to the members of the public to buy and drink its product “Massive Freak”. It indicated that this drink would make a person to gain 20 percent of his or her weight. If it did not happen, the company would offer $5,000 to that person. This is an offer from the company. On realising this, Jimmy decided to accept the offer. The case indicates that Jimmy telephoned the company and ordered Massive Freak, this was for a fourteen days’ supply. This is a clear indication of acceptance of the offer. The fact that Jimmy ordered and paid for the product from the company constituted acceptance of the offer1. He went ahead and consumed the drinks according to the directions provided. Jimmy did not only indicate his willingness or intention to deal with Massive Freak Drink Co, but also be accepted the offer made by the company. According to Simpson & Brian (1985 p. 364), an offer need not be made to a specific party, it can be made to the public, a class of people, or to the whole world. Massive Freak Drink Co made an offer to the public or to the whole world inviting them to take the offer and consume their product. The company's indication that the product, Massive Freak, would add 20 percent of the party’s body weight is the consideration2 for accepting the offer or purchasing the product. The acceptance of the offer is made by purchasing the product and consuming it according to the directions given. Massive Freak Drink Co made an offer; this is a promise to bound the company provided that Jimmy would accept the terms of the offer, of which he accepted. Jimmy accepted precisely what was offered by the company. Essentially, Massive Freak Drink Co made an offer; the company's infomercial running for a new meal replacement that would guarantee any person who drank “Massive Freak” three times a day in substitution for the meal for 14 days would gain 20 percent of their body weight amounted to a promise to add 20 percent of body weight. If the person accepting this offer accepts to take the product as directed, this is an offer and Jimmy accepted it by purchasing and drinking the product according to the directions3 provided. In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Court of Appeal [1893] 1 QB 256; [1892] EWCA Civ 1, the company produced 'Carbolic Smoke Ball’, this was designed to prevent users from contacting influenza or similar illnesses. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co advertised that “one hundred pounds reward to be paid by the company to any person who contracts increasing epidemic influenza or cold, or nay disease caused by taking cold. After having used the ball three times daily for two weeks as according to the directions given by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. it deposited 1,000 pounds with alliance bank showing its sincerity in the matter.” After seeing the advertisement, Mrs. Carlill bought and used one of the balls as directed by the company. She subsequently caught the influenza and claimed the reward. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co refused to pay Mrs. Carlill, she sued for the reward. It was held that Mrs. Carlill was entitled to the reward, there was unilateral contract comprising the offer of the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co as well as the acceptance by Mrs. Carlill. It was decided that there was a valid offer and acceptance and therefore a valid contract. Mrs. Carlill was given the reward by the company after suing it. In this case, Massive Freak Drink Co made an offer by the advertisement. The advertisement was an invitation to offer and hence the company indicated its intentions to enter in to contract. The several statements made by the company together w1ith its guarantee any person who drank the Massive Freak would add 20 percent of their weight constituted to a valid offer. Moreover, the company's assertions that it would pay $5,000 to any person who took the Massive Freak challenge and failed to gain 20 percent of their weight after 14 days bound the company in to compensating any person who took the product and did not add weight. This is a valid offer; it was made to the world. Importantly, the advertisement was not a mere sales puff as indicated by the company that it would pay $5,000 for not gaining weight, this demonstrated the sincerity of the company in helping people add weight. The language was not too vague to be enforced, it was understandable and clear. Although there is requirement for general rule of communicating acceptance, the offeror may dispense with the requirement for notification; this had been done in this case. In this case, it was very explicit that Jimmy, the offeree, did not need to communicate his intentions to accept the offer. Instead, the acceptance took place through the performance4 of the requested acts by the Massive Freak Drink Co (the acts involved drinking Massive Freak Drink three times a day in substitution of meals for 14 days). Another important aspect of this case that makes it to be a valid contract is that there was consideration. The inconveniences suffered by Jimmy in drinking Massive Freak as directed by the company were sufficient consideration. Additionally, Massive Freak Drink Co received the benefits in having people use the “Massive Freak” Drink. These are indications and proof that there was a valid contract between Jimmy and Massive Freak Drink Co. As such; the company is obliged to pay the $5,000 to Jimmy as the product did not perform and the company directed. For Jimmy, there was a contract between him and the company based on the advertisements and the consequent reliance in buying and using the “Massive Freak”. As such, the advertisement was a clearly an offer, it was designed to be read and to be acted upon by the members of the public5 and therefore was not an empty boast. It was also made to the public and therefore as soon as a person does the acts there is a contract. The mere performance of the act constitutes acceptance. The terms of the offer were not uncertain and vague. It did not matter where Jimmy got the product, it would otherwise increase the company's benefits. Importantly, Jimmy bought and started using “Massive Freak” when the advertisements were still6 running. Jimmy accepted the offer while the infomercials were still running. The case indicates that the company ended the infomercials on June 10th 2014. Jimmy had started using the product on June 2nd 2014, this was the date that he accepted7 the offer. In essence, there existed a contract between Massive Freak Drink Co and Jimmy. The company is bound to compensate Jimmy because of not adding 20 percent of his body weight as indicated in the adver4tisements. As such, Jimmy is entitled to recover the $5,000. The company should pay Jimmy the money, it is liable for non-performance of its product as it indicated and therefore it must pay Jimmy the amount it indicated if the product did not perform as it indicated. References Carbolic Smoke Ball Case, 1893 Q.B.1 256, 1 Q.B. 256 (1893) Clarke v. Stanford, 6 Q.B. 357 (1871) Gibbons v. Wright, 91 C.L.R. 423 (1954) Harris v. Time, Inc., 191 Cal. App. 3d 449, 237 Cal. Rptr. 584 (Ct. App. 1987) Jones v. Davies, 69 L.T. Rep. 492 Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985) Simpson, Alfred William Brian. Leading cases in the common law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Simpson, AW Brian. "Quackery and contract law: the case of the Carbolic Smoke Ball." The Journal of Legal Studies (1985): 345-389. Snell, N. J. C. "The carbolic smoke ball." International Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine 15.4 (2001): 195-196. Stokes v. Stokes, 105 L.T. Rep. 416 (1911) Yin, Tung. "Carbolic Smoke Ball for the Nineties: Class-Based Affirmative Action, A." Loy. LAL Rev. 31 (1997): 213. Read More