Offer Flashcards
What is an offer? (Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmstone)
An offer, capable of being converted into an agreement by acceptance, must consist of a definite promise to be bound provided that certain specified terms are accepted.
Who can an offer be made to?
An individual, a particular group of individuals, or to the world at large
What is an offer often distinguished from?
Mere invitation to treat
- Harvey v Facey (1893)
- Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979)
- Boulder Consolidated Ltd v Tangaere (1980)
what is meant by an invitation to treat not constituting an offer?
- No offer is made when a party communicates his proposed terms unless he also communicates his commitment to be bound on the other’s acceptance of the terms.
- A communication may possibly be only a request for or supply of information or an invitation to treat, not an offer.
What were the four legal principles outlined in Boulder Consolidated Ltd v Tangaere?
- Whether the existence of an agreement can be inferred from an offer and acceptance depends on whether one party may be assumed to have made a firm offer and the other party to have accepted it
- An offer to treat is distinguished from a binding offer primarily on the ground that it is not made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as the person to whom it is addressed simply communicates his assent to its sterms
- In deciding whether there has been a defined offer by the one party and an acceptance by the other the Courts must apply an objective test (as in Smith v Hughes). An apparent meeting of minds is sufficient to establish a consensus
- McMullin J: No acceptance of any offer can constitute a contract unless there is first a contractual offer available for acceptance (Gibson v MCC)
What are the two approaches of interpretation?
Global and conventional
What is the global approach?
Question of fact. Advocated by Denning MR in Gibson v MCC - sought to “look at the correspondence as a whole and at the conduct of the parties and see therefrom whether the parties have come to an agreement on everything that was material”
Carilill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256
Offer can be made to the world at large. Also, a unilateral contract can constitute an offer if there is sufficient detail, and an intention to be bound can be inferred from the circumstances.
Partridge v Crittenden (1968)
Significance : Advertisements are generally invitations to treat
Facts : Appellant ad in classifieds “Bramblefinch cocks and hens, 25s each” – words “offer for sale” not used. Charged with offering for sale live wild birds contrary to Protection of Birds Act 1954.
Held : Lord Parker noted :
“I think that when one is dealing with advertisements and circulars, unless they indeed come from manufacturers, there is business sense in their being construed as invitations to treat and not offers for sale.”
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953)
Significance : Priced goods on display merely invitations to treat
Facts : Defendants “self-service” shop. Selected goods were brought to counter. Registered pharmacist at counter restricted the sale of certain items. Under s18 UK Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, it was unlawful to sell unless under the supervision of registered pharmacist. Thus, question of when sale took place.
Held : Goddard J at first instance held that display of goods were only invitation to treat. CA upheld decision stating that “it is an offer by the customer to buy, and there is no sale effected until the buyer’s offer to buy is accepted by the acceptance of the price.”
Quare : What if shops falsely display low prices in an attempt to attract customers?
Alternative Analysis : Goods displayed are an offer, but acceptance is only when goods are brought to cashier.
Payne v Cave (1789)
An auctioneer’s request for bids is not an offer. The bid itself is an offer which the auctioneer is free to accept or reject.
UK Sale of Goods Act 1979
The sale is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of the hammer or in other customary manner, and that until such announcement is made, any bid may be retracted
Does an advertisement that the sale would be without reserve constitute a definite offer to sell to the highest bidder?
Scottish Court in Fenwick v MacDonald, Fraser & Co (1904) 6 F (Court of Sess) 850 held this was not so. But in the English case of Warlow v Harrison (1859) 1 E&E 309 (Court of Exchequer Chambers), although the action failed on other grounds, 3 of the judges stated (strictly obiter), that Plaintiff would have succeeded if he had argued that the advertisement on sale without reserve constituted an implicit promise to sell to the highest bidder
This dicta has come under academic criticism, eg. When was the contract of sale formed?
If the advertisement was only an invitation to treat, then the Plaintiff’s bid was not acceptance of the offer.
If the advertisement stating the auction was without reserve constituted a binding promise, then the Defendant would not be liable if he never held the sale at all but would be bound to sell to the highest bidder once the auction was started.
Spencer v. Harding (1869 - 1870)
Generally, displays or advertisements for goods for sale are only invitations to treat and not offers. This rule may prevail even when the word “offer” is used because it may not have been used in its legal sense.
This protects the party placing the advertisement from incurring a liability contract with every single person who is willing to purchase the goods at the stipulated price.
Fisher v. Bell (1961)
Displays of a flick-knife in a shop window were not offers to sell the items in contravention of the legislation restricting the sale of offensive weapons, but were merely an invitation to treat.
courts are prepared to treat displays and advertisements as offers when there are good policy reasons for doing so.
Chapelton v Barry UDC (1940)
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)
Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd (2005)
Chapelton v. Barry UDC (1940)
HELD: Courts held that the display of deck chairs for hire on the beach with a notice of the charges was an offer, which was accepted when the customers picks up the item.
Policy consideration that it would be unfair to leave the claimant without a remedy, thus the need to accelerate the point of contract formation in order to keep out the exclusion clause.
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)
- Manufacturer advertised carbolic smoke ball and offered to pay £100 to anyone who catches influenza after using their smoke balls in a specified manner. To show sincerity, the manufacturer deposited £1,000 into a bank. P contracted influenza and sued for £100.
- HELD: Offer was made to the whole world at the advertisement stage and accepted when the customer buys and uses the product in the specific manner.
- Policy consideration does not want to allow traders to make wild claims to sell quack remedies
Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd (2005)
applies principle from Carlill to an online platform (recall - mistake in pricing of printers, which plaintiffs clearly knew about and took advantage of)
Harvey v. Facey (1893)
P sent D a telegram asking if D will sell them the goods and what was the lowest cash price. D replied with the lowest price and P purported to accept the offer.
HELD: D merely supplied information to P’s and expressed no clear intentions to be bound, no contract.
Storer v. Manchester City Council (1974)
cf: Gibson v Manchester City Council (1978)
- Council advertised for the sale of houses, P ascertained the price and sent a formal application of purchase. Council responded with a letter and included an agreement for sale that P signed and returned.
- HELD: This was a contract that was concluded (went beyond the stage of Gibson). The letter evinced intention to be bound as soon as S accepted.
Gibson v. Manchester City Council (1978)
- Council wrote letter informing P of the price at which the council may be prepared to sell the house, but explicitly stated that the letter is not an offer of a mortgage. P filled in formal application and made repairs to the house.
- HELD: No contract because P has to make the offer by his formal application. While the council had indicated an intention to accept the offer, it had not completed the acceptance by communicating it back.
Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1971)
- HELD: Automatic machines stating chare rates are a standing offer that the motorist accepts by driving in and prompting the machine to issue a ticket.
- Therefore, there is an exclusion of liability contained on a notice placed inside the car park since it is not part of the contract and comes to the motorist’s notice after contract has been made. (same as Chapelton v. Barry UDC)
quotations
Mere quotation of a price is not an offer. Neither is a mere inquiry