Error when sending an offer If an intermediary, such as a telegraph company. B is wrong in the transmission of an offer, most courts prove that the party who chose this method of communication is bound to the terms of the erroneous message. The same rule applies to assumptions. To achieve this result, the courts consider the telegraph society to be the representative of the party that chose it. Other courts justify the comfort of business rule. Some courts find that in the event of a transmission error, there is no contract, either because the telegraph company is an INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR and not the shipper`s representative, or because there was no meeting of the parties` minds. However, a bidder who knows or must know the error in submitting an offer cannot exploit the known error in accepting the offer; he or she is bound by the initial terms of the offer. An exception arises when advertising makes a unilateral promise, such as offering a reward, as decided in the famous case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, in 19th century England. The company, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, proposed a smokeball that, if it sniffed “three times a day for two weeks,” would prevent users from catching the “flu.” If the smokeball does not prevent “the flu, the company promised that it would pay $100 to the user, adding that they deposited “$1000 in the Alliance bank to show our sincerity in the file.” When Ms. Carlill complained about the money, the company argued that the complaint should not be considered a serious and legally binding offer; instead, it was a “simple mess”; However, the Court of Appeal found that Carbolic had made a serious offer to a reasonable man and found that the reward was a contractual undertaking. Under the common law, the courts refused to verify the adequacy or fairness of a good case, since the payment of a given price was a sufficient legal consideration.
If one attempts to prove errors, misrepresentations, fraud or coercion – or a similar defence – the inadequacy of the price paid for the promise could be significant evidence of such defences, but the law does not require appropriate consideration to find an enforceable contract. Objectively, the Tribunal found that the terms and practices surrounding the agreement justified a reasonable belief that the parties intended to be bound by an enforceable agreement. The parties had discussed the contract for more than forty minutes, changes were made to the original agreement and there was a provision for the title review.  When something is advertised in a newspaper or on a poster, advertising is usually not an offer, but an invitation to processing, an indication that one or both parties are willing to negotiate an agreement.    People lulled A contract entered into by a drunken person is null and forth.