My Professor is a bit picky I wanted to get a second set of eyes on this before I turned it in and critique it.

FACTS

One of Lilian Liberty's clients is a technology firm, TECH. Wanting to encourage innovation and raise its brand awareness, TECH posted this announcement on its website on January 1, 2019.

TECH received lots of positive publicity for the Challenge, which was shared widely on social media. TECH received no winning entries by the end of the school year, however, and it decided to close the contest. TECH posted this announcement on its website on July 1, 2019:

Jack/Greenville High School (GHS)

Jack attends Greenville High School (GHS). Excited about the TECH WALK THE DOG CHALLENGE, Jack and the members of the GHS Robotics Club began to design a robot as soon as they returned from winter break on January 7, 2019. They worked on their prototype through the remainder of the school year.

No one from the GHS Robotics Club saw TECH's July 1 announcement ending the Challenge; thus, the GHS Robotics Club resumed work on its prototype when campus reopened for the 2019-2020 school year. On October 1, the Club created a working walk-the-dog-robot. The GHS Club sent a video of the demonstration to TECH on October 2nd.

TECH wrote back and said, "Great job, but we withdrew the Challenge."

GHS invested significant resources in the Challenge and demands the prize money.

John / Verdeville High School (VHS)

John learned about theTECH WALK THE DOG CHALLENGEon the Internet in early August, but he did not see TECH's July 1, 2019 announcement.

When school opened inmid-August, John and the Verdeville High School (VHS) Robotics Club immediately began working on the project. The VHS Club quickly made a working prototype and sent a video to TECH at the end of September.

TECH wrote back and said, "Great job, but we withdrew the Challenge."

VHS invested significant resources in the Challenge and demands the prize money.

1. Is TECH legally obligated to pay Greenville High School? State a clear conclusion and thoroughly explain your answer. In your explanation, be sure to describe the rule/principle in contract law that determines your answer and show how that rule applies to the facts of this case.

Yes, TECH is legally obligated to pay Greenville High School. TECH did post the $100,000 prize on its website on 1 January 2019; TECH withdrew the offer on 1 July 2019. On 1 January 2019, TECH put into play the initiation of a unilateral contract.The contract set forth that $100,000 would go to the winners' school upon completing a robot that walks a dog and cleans up after it. Tech said the criteria to determine the winner would meet the project's goal and finish first. While TECH was within their rights to revoke the offer, it does not relieve the obligation they incurred to Greenville High School. They began work on the project before 1 July 2019, when TECH withdrew the offer.The contract was irrevocable when Greenville High School started fulfillment of it as it counted as acceptance. TECH may have relayed upon the Mailbox Rule to justify the nonpayment, but the underpinning principle would come down to revocation before the start of fulfillment, and in this case, it was not.

2.Is TECH legally obligated to pay Verdeville High School? State a clear conclusion and thoroughly explain your answer. In your explanation, be sure to describe the rule/principle in contract law that determines your answer and show how that rule applies to the facts of this case.

No, TECH is not legally obligated to pay Verdeville High School. TECH did post the $100,000 prize on its website on 1 January 2019; TECH withdrew the offer on 1 July 2019. On 1 January 2019, TECH put into play the initiation of a unilateral contract.The contract set forth that $100,000 would go to the winners' school upon completing a robot that walks a dog and cleans up after it. Tech said the criteria to determine the winner would meet the project's goal and finish first. The fact is that Verdeville High School did not begin work until after the revocation happened on 1 July 2019, and as such, TECH was within their rights to revoke the contract and incurred no obligation, but the Mailbox Rule in this effect does offer protection to TECH.

3.What language could TECH include in future contest announcements to avoid such disputes? Explain why the added language should prevent similar disputes.

TECH could add language that states all submissions must be submitted before a specific date. They also could add verbiage to include that they reserve the right to cancel the contest before a particular date.

-Everett A. Dees-

References:

1. Lesson Authors Jennifer S. Martin Professor of Law Saint Thomas University School of Law, & Jennifer S. Martin Professor of Law Saint Thomas University School of Law. (2021). Discussions in Contracts: Manner of Acceptance: Bilateral and Unilateral Contracts Podcast. CALI. https://www.cali.org/lesson/16928.

2. Lesson Authors Jennifer S. Martin Professor of Law Saint Thomas University School of Law, & Jennifer S. Martin Professor of Law Saint Thomas University School of Law. (2021). Discussions in Contracts: Mailbox Rule Podcast. CALI. https://www.cali.org/lesson/16999.