incurring expenses looking for the necklace and have thus provided consideration. As a result they have deprived Simone of her right to revoke the promise. Of course, full performance of the stipulated act, i.e. finding the stolen necklace, is necessary before Simone’s promise to pay the large reward can be enforced.

In Case 14(a) as described Raymond has made no promise to look for the necklace. If an Irish court found on the facts that Simone wanted such a counter-promise in return for her own, and that Raymond had so promised expressly or impliedly, then the court would probably conclude that there was a bilateral contract binding on both parties in which one party’s obligations were conditional on the other’s success.

Summaries

France: In Case 14(a), Simone may terminate the contract but she must pay Raymond’s expenses. In Case 14(b), the promise to the general public can be revoked under the same conditions as a promise to a specific person, but the courts will deem such a promise to be valid for only a short period of time. Possibly, Raymond can claim compensation for the management of another’s business (gestion d’affaires).

Belgium: In Case 14(a), Simone may terminate the contract but she must compensate Raymond for his expenses and the loss of the chance to earn the sum offered for finding the necklace. In Case 14(b), the promise of reward is enforceable because it is unilaterally binding or because revoking it would be an abuse of right. Possibly, Raymond can claim compensation for the management of another’s business (gestion d’affaires).

The Netherlands: In Case 14(a), Simone’s promise to Raymond is binding. In Case 14(b), the promise is not binding but, when Simone revokes it, the court can require her to pay ‘equitable compensation’ to anyone who has ‘begun to prepare’ the performance requested. Here, most likely, a member of the public would not have ‘begun to prepare’ simply because he has incurred expenses looking for the necklace. If Simone had declared her offer to be irrevocable, then she would not be entitled to revoke it unless she had ‘serious reasons’, which she did not in this case.

Spain: The promise in Case 14(a) is binding. The promise in Case 14(b) may be revoked if the revocation is made public to the same extent as the promise.

Portugal: The promise in Case 14(a) is binding. Nevertheless, Simone has the right to revoke it, although, if she does, she must compensate Raymond for any loss he incurred. The promise in Case 14(b) is binding,

316 the enforceabilit y of promises

but it can be revoked before the necklace is found by making the revocation in the same way as the original offer. If it is revoked, Simone need not compensate those who have incurred expenses.

Italy: In Case 14(a), if Raymond undertook no obligation to try to find the necklace, express or implied, some believe that Simone’s offer is irrevocable as soon as it comes to the promisee’s notice (except possibly for a just cause, as described below), and some that it is revocable until Raymond begins to perform (and thereafter, not even for a just cause). Even by the second view, the promise is irrevocable if Raymond has begun to try to find the necklace.

In Case 14(b), the promise to the public can be revoked only if the revocation is made public in the same way as the offer, and only then for a just cause. Just cause means that the performance has become impossible or useless; it is not enough that she changed her mind.

Austria: In Case 14(a), the contract is valid, but Simone has the right to cancel it provided she compensates Raymond for work already done and for the profit he would have made had the contract been completed.

In Case 14(b), the promise is valid, but Simone can revoke it. Revocation does not affect the rights of a person who achieves the result for which a reward is offered provided they did not know or have reason to know of the revocation, but here, no one has yet found the necklace.

Germany: In Case 14(a), if Raymond is actually obligated to find the necklace, Simone may cancel the contract but only if she pays him the fee agreed upon, which would be problematic here because he earns the fee only if he finds the necklace. If, as is more likely, Raymond is only obligated to try to find the necklace, Simone has a right to cancel it without paying Raymond’s fee. She must do so in good faith: for example, not when he is about to find the necklace.

In Case 14(b), the promise is valid but Simone can revoke it provided she does so in the same way as she made the promise. She need not pay anyone for expenses they have incurred.

Greece: In Case 14(a), Simone can withdraw her offer if the result has not been achieved in a reasonable period of time, as seems to be the case here where three months have passed.

In Case 14(b), the promise is valid but Simone can revoke it in the same way as it was made.

Scotland: Both promises are non-gratuitous and therefore irrevocable. Possibly, they could be revoked after a reasonable time has passed, but three months is not a reasonable time.

England: The promises are offers of unilateral contract in the common law

sense: offers that are said to be accepted by performing the act requested. They can be withdrawn before they have been relied upon, in the case of the advertisement, in the same way that the original offer was made. In principle, it would seem that the offer could be withdrawn even afterwards, but some English cases have held that it could not be after the promisee has begun to perform, as distinguished from making preparations to perform. It is not clear that these cases would be followed here, or how this distinction would be applied. In any event, a court would be unlikely to enforce the promise in the newspaper advertisement.

Ireland: The promises are offers of unilateral contract in the common law sense: offers that are said to be accepted by performing the act requested. They can be withdrawn before they have been relied upon. They probably will be held to be irrevocable when the offeree begins performance, and to incur expenses looking for the necklace is probably to begin performance.

Preliminary comparisons

The promise in Case 14(a) was revocable at will only in Germany, and even then, the revocation must be made in good faith. It is revocable in France and Portugal, but Simone would be liable for Raymond’s expenses. It is revocable in Belgium and Austria only if she pays his expenses and lost profit, and so, while the promise is revocable, she must pay the same amount as if it were not. It is irrevocable in the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, and Scotland, and, in Italy, it may be revocable only for just cause. It may be irrevocable after Raymond has ‘begun to perform’ in Italy, according to one opinion, and in England and Ireland, where the promise is deemed to be an offer of unilateral contract in the common law sense, that is, an offer that can be accepted only by performing.

The promise in Case 14(b) is freely revocable in Austria, and in Spain, Portugal, Germany, and Greece as well provided that the revocation is given the same publicity as the original offer. It is revocable in France if Simone pays for the expenses anyone has incurred; in the Netherlands provided she pays ‘equitable compensation’ to whoever has begun to perform. It is irrevocable in Belgium either because unilateral obligations (in the civil law sense) are binding or because revocation would be an abuse of right. It is irrevocable in Scotland because it is not a gratuitous obligation. It is irrevocable except for just cause in Italy. It is probably irrevocable only after performance has begun in England and Ireland, where, as before, it is deemed to be an offer of unilateral contract in the common law sense.