Lea And Julie Case Summary

Question 1a
Issue
The main issue is whether there is a binding contract between Lelia and Julie. There are four factors to be present for a contract to be taken place, The legal capacity to enter into a contract, Agreement, Consideration and An intention to create legal relations. For an offer to take place, there must be a person making the offer and there must be a person accepting that offer. (Bachelor of Commerce Bridging Mudorch University Commercial Law: Study Guide)
In this case, Lelia is the one making an offer to the world at large by advertising her lost locket and chain on the local newspaper and we can assume that Lelia is fully at fault; especially when she did not stated clearly on the advertisement, to give her a telephone call upon

To make the offer valid, Lelia may specify that “telephone call acceptance must be made immediately upon finding the lost locket and chain, and reward will then be given for returning it to the said address”
In this case, there was a waiver of communication. To avoid complications, Lelia should have specified clearly on the advertisement on the mode of communications of acceptance required in order to claim the reward. The offer of acceptance must be communicated efficiently and cannot be vague. Similarly, in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co compared to Lelia’s case, the offer was communicated to the world at large and by carrying out the action stated in the offer, the person is deemed to have accepted the offer.(Netk.net.au)

Conclusion
In conclusion, if Lelia have stated specifically on the mode of acceptance and offer on the advertisement, Julie would have stood a better chance to claim her rewards after returning the locket and chain to