GSP165: Marco, who was a senior director of renowned social media company Tweety has recently resigned, claiming that Tweety: The Law and You Assignment, SUSS, Singapore

Question 1

• Marco, who was a senior director of renowned social media company Tweety has recently resigned, claiming that Tweety had failed to pay him (and other employees) $33,000 in promised bonuses. In Jan 2022, Tweety promised its employees that they would receive 50% of their target bonuses, however, Marco never received that money. State and elaborate what are the key elements that need to be present for Marco to prove that there is a legally binding contract between Tweety and him.
• The promised bonus was made for sales targets that Marco had achieved in 2021. Explain whether there is sufficient consideration in this case.
• Tweety was later bought over by billionaire Elan Mask. Elan posted a social media post on Tweety, directed at Marco, that if he can continue to keep up with his sales target in 2022, he will indeed be given the promised bonus. Marco replied to that post with a poop emoji. Explain whether Marco is likely to successfully claim this bonus assuming he does hit the 2022 target.
• When Elan Mask took over Tweety, he conducted mass layoffs of the majority of the staff. List and explain what possible remedies these retrenched staff can claim from Tweety.
• Sim Tia, one of the retrenched staff, was severely depressed as a result of this. She believed that Elan Mask fired her because he is sexist. As a result, she hates all men and decided to call off her wedding with her fiancé, Inn O’sen. She now wishes to sue Tweety for damages for all the resulting losses including $200,000 that was paid to the hotel for the wedding dinner. Evaluate and explain the chances of her success.

Question 2

In recent years, ‘frontier tourism’ (i.e. exclusive and extreme forms of adventure travel that are very expensive) has gained popularity. The crazy rich are increasingly trying high-risk tourism, including space or deep-sea travel. A recently founded company, Oceandoor had built a submersible vehicle, which it claims is able to bring tourists to the bottom of the seabed to explore famous ship wreckage.

• The founder and CEO of Oceandoor, Mr. Rush, told one potential customer, Mr Rich, that his submersible is “safer than crossing the street”. He said, “While there’s obviously risk it’s way safer than flying in a helicopter or even scuba diving. There hasn’t been even an injury in 35 years in a non-military sub.” He offered the customer a greatly discounted ticket for $150,000 – a $100,000 discount on the normal fee. Believing Mr. Rush’s safety guarantee, Mr Rich purchased the ticket. Subsequently, Mr Rich’s son strongly opposed to this because of safety concerns. Mr. Rich now thinks he made a mistake and wants a full refund of the $150,000. Outline and discuss whether he can set aside this contract.
• Mr. Rush later argued that he had very clearly stated all the risks involved in this expedition, and that Mr. Rich agreed to it. Mr. Rich realised that the long list of risks was written at the back of his ticket in font size 8. Explain whether your answer to Question 2(a) will be different given this new fact.
• Explain the requirements to establish (i) mistakes and (ii) frustration as a vitiating factor in contracts.
• Mr. Rich decided not to risk his life even if he will not get a refund. Mr. Rush then made an offer on Oceandoor’s Twitter for anyone to replace Mr. Rich in the submersible, at an even lower price of $50,000 per ticket. After posting the tweet, Mr. Rush realized that might be too low a price to offer. Discuss whether this is a valid offer.
• Mr. Bump saw the tweet and thought it was a great deal. It was always his dream to do such extreme sport but it has always been too unaffordable. He immediately tweeted a reply saying he accepts the offer. The moment he posted it, he regretted it because it was a lot of money. Apply your knowledge and cite some possible legal arguments he can make to avoid being bound to this contract.