Dear Ger,

Whether the arrangement you describe can constitute a binding contract
depends on whether A remains free to withdraw even after B has performed
the specified steps. If B is free to take the specified steps or not as he
or she chooses then the arrangement is clearly not a bilateral contract,
but could constitute a unilateral contract if A becomes bound to confer
the benefit if B takes the specified steps. If A remains free to withdraw
from the arrangement and refuse the benefit even after B has performed
then A¹s promise is clearly illusory and the arrangement is not binding on
either party.

Views differ on the question whether an offeror under a unilateral
contract can withdraw after the offeree has embarked on performance: see
Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1978] Ch 232 and the decision of
the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Mobil Oil Australia
Ltd v Wellcome International Pty Ltd (1998) 81 FCR 475.


With best wishes,
Andrew



On 6/12/2013 9:39 am, "Gerard Sadlier" <gerard.sadlier@gmail.com> wrote:

>ear all,
>
>I am looking for cases on the question whether there can be
>consideration in an arrangement where 1 party "A" agrees to confer a
>benefit on the other party "B" in say 3 months, if B takes certain
>steps but both A and B retain the right to terminate the arrangement
>at any time before conferral, for any reason whatever.
>
>Can such an arrangement constitute a binding contract before the steps
>are taken and the benefit conferred?
>
>In practical terms, the benefit is that neither party thinks that the
>other will resile, though both accepts that they are free to do so.
>
>Comments welcome.
>
>Kind regards
>
>Ger
>