a little contract law question

[jp_2031]

I have been given a situation, and i was wondering if my solution would be efficient, im not sure if it would be or not;

Bob has placed an advert in the newspaper stating that he will sell a tshirt for 1.99 to anyone whom brings the advert to his shop; he published it , forgetting to state it was limited to the first 50 people whom done so;
My solution was, that Bob can place a sign in his window that customers will see before they buy the tshirt, that states that "the advertisement found in the newspaper is limited to the first 50 customers"

My second solution was that Bob places a second advertisement, same deal, but with the limited to first 50 customers, and also stating that it replaces all other existing offers. (But he would need to wait till the next day to do so, as the newspaper is only published once a day, meaning he must give anyone with the advert the tshirt for 1.99 for a day)

As long as the consumers are aware its limited to 50 people before they complete the acceptance of the contract, it is okay to change the terms? So would the sign in the window be effective?
Thanks :D

[bookbinder]

I think that the sign in the window would be the best answer. A shopper sees something in the shop window, or, as here, an advert in a paper, and goes to the shop with the intention of buying the something. The shopper then says, "I want to buy your tshirt, here is my £1.99." That is an offer to treat, and it is up to the shopkeeper to accept or reject the shopper's money. If the shopper is customer number 51, say, the shopkeeper should refuse to accept the £1.99 and should point out the revised condition. It is then up to the shopper as to whether or not he proceeds with the purchase.

[jp_2031]

Thanks; but in the case of calill vs carbolic smokeball co, they placed an advert in the paper and were obliged to give carlill £100 because the terms in the advertisement were specific and amounted to an offer; as in this case, he specifically says "bring the advert, and you get it for £1.99" therefore he is obliged to do so?
But the sign in the window would as you said, be efficient due to revised conditions? Would this be classed as a revocation of offer?
Thanks for your help :)

[factor-fiction]

Just say you've sold out of t-shirts.

[jp_2031]

But he still would have to abide to his offer; the advertisement doesn't state while stocks last, therefore people can sue him for the price difference of a full price tshirt

[Gmcd01]

The question comes down to one of reasonableness. Since the now old case of Carlill, academics question at what point it's fair to revoke an offer to the world at large. In Carlill, you'll recall that the person had to buy and use the smokeball and suffer harm (influenza) in order to get the £100. Once a person has done all that, it's inequitable to withdraw the offer.
So, if I offered you £5,000 to walk from Land's End to John O'Groat's, and cancelled the offer when you're 10 miles from the finish, is that fair? I say not. But in this case, a person has almost completed all the prerequisites- buying/acquiring the paper, cutting out the advert and making the journey. If I were the shopkeeper, I would honour all comers on the first day and take any losses incurred as a lesson in business. The advert in the second paper would supercede the first, and could reasonable be expected to be read when the shops open again. This way, he's less likely to fall foul of the contractual terms, and he could also put a notice in the window informing customers of the newer ad, thereby also avoiding potential embarrassment at the till.