Part 1: Tom v Whittless Pty Ltd Tom finds himself in a difficult situation where he needs a quick way to lose 4 centimeters from his waist as quickly as possible, so when he sees The 'Whittless Life Whittler' advert suddenly has the answer to his problems. However, after using the Whittler as directed for the stated period of time, Tom did not receive the advertised results and wanted to claim the $1000 reward. First it is important to recognize that there is definitely a contract between Tom and Whittless Pty Ltd. L 'offer in the contract is the initial advertisement of Whittless Belt Whittler', and acceptance of the offer is the process of using the product according to the instructions. It makes no difference that Tom did not purchase the Whittler personally, as the product terms do not specify that the offer is only available to those who purchase the product, furthermore the offer is not the purchasing process, but rather advertising, and acceptance is not the purchase process but rather the actual execution of instructions during the advertised period. Furthermore, the consideration in Tom v Whittless Pty Ltd is not the actual purchase of the product but rather the damage resulting from Tom's giving up of time and freedom to use the product. In this case the bidder does not need to receive any tangible benefit. This legal principle was first used in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1983], where Justice Lindley held that to accept an offer a person need only follow the stated method of acceptance, this will be considered sufficient acceptance without notification. the offeror has expressly or tacitly communicated that the offer does not require notification of acceptance. Therefore the contract between Tom and W......middle of paper......between Tom and Woonona Watusi of Warwick as the offer was never accepted. The fact that Woonona Watusi of Warwick's offer stated that it could be accepted without response is irrelevant, as silence never constitutes acceptance. There is no contract between Tom and Dapto Disco, as Tom does not accept the offer before it is legitimately revoked. from the Dapto Disco manager. This is legal, as Tom did not consider the option provided by Dapto Disco, therefore Tom has no legal reason to claim the reservation. BIBLIOGRAPHY Paterson, Jeannie, Andrew Robertson and Arlen Duke, Contract: Cases and Materials (Lawbook, 12th edition, 2012)Henthorn v Fraser [1982] 2 Ch 27Goldsbrough Mort & Co. Ltd v Quinn (1910) 10 CLR 674 HCAEmpirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 523Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1983] 1 QB 256