Offer Flashcards
Introduction to offer / acceptance
In cases of contract law, the courts may intervene for several reasons. One reason for court involvement is when there is a dispute as to whether there is a contract between the parties at all. Parties may dispute the fact of agreement or might wish to argue despite the agreement, it is unenforceable. The typical basis for deciding whether there has been agreement between the parties, derives from classical law of contract which developed from the late 18th and early 19th century case law. This is the rules of ‘offer’ and ‘acceptance’.
What is an offer
An offer may be defined as a definite indication by one person that they are prepared to contract with another on certain terms, which are fixed, or capable of being fixed, at the time the offer is made. Thus, an offer is an indication of willingness to contract on the specified terms, without further negotiation.
Why important to distinguish between offer and ITT
Once a statement or action is categorised as an offer, then the party who made the statement or did the action has put themselves in the position where they can become legally bound by acceptance. Therefore, it is important that behaviour which may have some of the characteristics of an offer should not be treated as such if, viewed objectively, that was not what was intended. Sometimes a person will wish to simply open negotiations, rather than make an offer. This preliminary communication is referred to as an ‘invitation to treat’.
Two similar cases for offer / ITT
Gibson v MCC
Storer v MCC
Gibson facts
Mr Gibson was a tenant of a house owned by MCC. Council decided that it wished to give its tenants the opportunity to purchase the house. Mr Gibson wished to take advantage of this opportunity and started negotiations with the Council. He received a letter that indicated a price that stated ‘The Corporation may be prepared to sell the house to you’ at that price. Letter instructed Mr G, if he wished to make a formal application, to complete the form and return it. He did this. However, at this point local elections took place and Council changed to Labour party control. Immediately reversed this policy and refused to proceed with the sale. Lord Diplock described the wording that they ‘may be prepared’ as fatal to the argument that the council was making a solid contractual offer. House of Lords held that there was no contract as the language was not sufficiently definite to amount to an offer and this was simply an invitation to treat.
Storer facts
This case had very similar facts. MCC refused to proceed with the sale of the council property. The terms had been agreed. It was found that as Mr Storer had signed and returned a document titled ‘Agreement for Sale’, this document was deemed to be sufficiently definite to amount to an offer from the Council that Mr Storer had accepted.
Difference between Storer and Gibson
Differences between the cases seemed to rest on the wording of the documents that had been returned. As Storer’s document for the agreement for sale was sufficiently clear and certain, this could constitute a valid contractual offer. However, Gibson had not yet received or returned such a document, but was in more initial stages with the wording being too vague.
In Gibson, who proposed different approach than offer / acceptance
It was proposed by Lord Denning MR in the Court of Appeal that you should look at the correspondence as a whole and the conduct of the parties to see whether there was an agreement for everything that was material. However this was rejected by the House of Lords.
Intro to ITT
As mentioned when discussing Gibson and Storer, a preliminary communication may be found to be an invitation to treat, rather than an offer. It is important to be able to distinguish between an invitation to treat and an offer to determine whether there has been an agreement formed between the parties. There are several areas whereby communications are treated as an ITT rather than an offer. These are:
1. Display of goods
2. Advertisements
3. Auctions
4. Tenders
Display of goods general position
An area whereby difficulty may arise is in relation to the display of goods in a shop window, on the shelves of supermarkets or where there are self-service areas. The general position from case law suggests that the display of goods within a shop are invitations to treat, rather than an offer
Display of goods cases
Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots
Fisher v Bell
PSGB v Boots facts
S18 of the pharmacy and Poisons Act made it an offence to sell certain medicines unless under the supervision of a registered pharmacist. Boots introduced a system whereby some of these medicines were made available to customers on a self-serve basis. There was no supervision until the customer went to the cashier. At this point a registered pharmacist would supervise the transaction and could intervene if necessary. Court of appeal held for the defendant. Decided that the sale was made at the cash desk where the customer made an offer to buy, which could be accepted or rejected by the cashier. The reason for this decision was that it was not acceptable to say the contract is complete when goods are put into a basket, because the customer may change their mind
Fisher v Bell facts
The defendant shopkeeper displayed in his shop window a flick knife accompanied by a price ticket. He was charged with offering for sale of a flick knife contrary to s1(1) Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. The issue before the court was whether the display constituted an offer. The Court held it did not, but the display was merely an invitation to treat. Lord Parker had no doubt as to this contractual position, he found: “It is clear that according to the ordinary law of contract the display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is merely an invitation to treat. It is in no sense an offer for sale the acceptance of which constitutes a contract”
Advertisements general position
The general position in relation to advertisements is that they are an invitation to treat
Cases advertisements
Partridge
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co