314 the enforceabilit y of promises

the other party that he will not perform.46 Where such a ‘breach’ occurs, the innocent party can ‘accept the repudiation’ and claim damages as of that time. Raymond might be able to argue that Simone’s purported withdrawal was in effect an anticipatory breach. If so, then Raymond could claim damages, which would presumably be based on the value to him, at that time, of the possibility of getting the reward. This means that Raymond would almost certainly not receive the entire reward, but only a percentage reflecting his loss of a chance. A second possibility is that an English court would find that Simone had in fact withdrawn the offer, but was in breach of an implied obligation not to do so, and hence that damages could be recovered on that basis.

A final general observation is that, as should be evident by now, withdrawal of offers to make a ‘unilateral’ contract raises problems that cannot be accommodated easily by orthodox English law.

ireland

These cases concern a unilateral contract. Irish law and English law use the expression ‘unilateral contract’ in a quite different sense from continental legal systems. In Irish law and English law, a unilateral contract is where only one party makes a promise inviting the other, not to promise in return, but to make some performance. In contrast, a bilateral contract is where both parties are bound, and it comprises the exchange of a promise for a promise.

There is no difficulty in seeing the consideration for such a promise when the stipulated act has actually been completed. Thus in this case, Simone clearly obtains a benefit where she promises a reward for the return of the stolen necklace and it is actually returned to her.

Chitty47 suggests that just as commencement of performance can amount to acceptance of an offer of a unilateral contract, in the same way such commencement can also amount to consideration. It may be a sufficient detriment to the promisee to commence efforts in finding the necklace and incurring expenses thereby. Thus commencement of performance may provide consideration, and may accordingly deprive the promisor of his right to revoke the promise.

There is slight Irish authority on this point but, in my opinion, an Irish court would probably adopt the approach suggested by Chitty. If so, an Irish court will hold that Raymond or others have commenced performance by