Offer V Invitation To Treat Flashcards
Legal principle: defining the difference in wording between an offer and an invitation to treat.
Gibson v Manchester City council (1979)
Mr Gibson requested details on purchasing his home and received a letter from the council stating that it ‘ may be prepared too sell the house to you’. Mr Gibson was invited to complete an application if he wished to peruse the sale. He completed the form, within the period id making the enquiry and the submission of the form the council changed its policy. Mr Gibson argued he was entitled to the sale of the house. It was held that the agreement was not upheld as the HOL had found no indication from the letter that intended a binding promise. Nothing more than an invitation to treat.
Legal principle: the difference between offer and invitation to treat.
Storer v Manchester City council (1974)
The tenant, storer, received communication from the council which stated ‘you will sign the agreement and return it to me, i will send you the agreement signer on behalf of the council in exchange. It was held that the words of communication were deemed to fulfil the formalities requires t constitute a valid offer. At the point in time the tenant accepted this offer, a binding agreement was concluded.
Legal principle: Advertisements will be classified as an invitation to treat.
Partridge v Critten (1968)
The defendant was charged with the offence of offering a live wild bird. Critten had placed an advertisement stating ‘ Bramlefinch cocks, 25s each’. It was held that he was not guilty of offering these wild birds for sale because the advertisements was seen as an invitation to treat and not an offer. The person who responded to the advert would be the offeror.
Legal principle: items on display do not constitute as offers.
Pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v Boots cash chemist (1953)
Boots were charged with selling controlled pharmaceutical products other than under supervision of a pharmacist. The shop was a self service shop where the items had to be sold by a pharmacist were on a shelf for customers to select. It was held that they were found not guilty as the offer was by the customer at the till where there was a pharmacist present to approve the acceptance of the offer. The approval by a pharmacist was required by the act controlling of sales.
Legal principle: Lots at an auction are an invitation to treat.
British car auctions v Wright
In this case, the auctioneers were prosecuted for offering to sell an unfit vehicle at an auction. However, the prosecution failed because there was no offer, only an invitation to treat.
Legal principle: A request for information is not an offer.
Harvey v Facey (1893)
Harvey wanted to buy Faceys farm and sent a message, ‘will you sell me Bumper Hall Pen (the farm)? state lowest price’. Facey replied: ‘ lowest price acceptable £900’ Harvey tried to buy the farm for £900 but could not so the reply was merely a reply to the request for information, not an offer.
Legal principle: Goods in a shop window are an invitation to treat.
Fisher v Bell (1961)
A flick knife was displayed with a price in a ship window. To offer this would be an offence under the offensive weapons act 1961, but it was held the shopkeeper was not guilty because it was an invitation to treat and not an offer
Legal principle: unilateral contracts are performance based. If the person chooses to perform the act, there will be a legally binding unilateral contract.
Carlill v Carbolic smoke all co. (1893)
A company created a smoke ball, made with carbolic acid and in order to advertise the Medici, advertised in the pall mall gazette offering £100 to anyone using it correctly and who then correctly name who then contracted influenza. They deposited £1000 in the bank to the show the money was there. Mrs Carlill used the carbolic smoke ball as instructed and contracted the flu. The company then wouldn’t pay the £100p- after two letters were sent .The court awarded Mrs Carlill the money. The company argued that they didn’t have to pay as she didn’t formally accept the advert. They did not accept this and stated the promise was an offer that could be accepted by anyone who used the smokeball correctly and get the flu as the advert was a unilateral offer.
Legal principle: offers can also be made by a notice or a machine.
Thornton v Shoe lane parking (1971)
Mr Thornton put money into a machine and was given a ticket at the entrance to a car park. The offer was made by the machine on behalf of the company owning the car park. The acceptance was made by putting the money into the machine. This was where the contract was made which dictated what terms were in the contract- the terms displayed by the machine.
Legal Principle: The offer only starts when communicated.
Taylor v Laird (1856)
Taylor gave up the captaincy of a ship overseas. He needed to get back to England. He worked as an ordinary crew member on the ship in order to get back to England, but received no wages. The ship owner had not received any communication of his offer to work as an ordinary crew member. Therefore, no contract could exist for the payment of wages on this voyage.
Legal Principle: the offer can only be accepted when it is still open, timing is critical.
Stevenson v McLean (1880)
On Saturday, the offeror offered to sell iron to the offeree. The offer was stated to be open until Monday. On Monday at 10am, the offeree sent a telegram asking if he could have credit terms, but got no reply. At 1:34pm the offeree sent a telegram accepting the offer, but at 1:25pm the offeror had sent a telegram saying ‘sold iron to a third party’, arriving at 1:46pm. The offeree sued that the query about credit was a counter offer so there could be no acceptance. It was held that the query about credit was an only an enquiry, so a binding contract was made at 1:34pm.
Legal Principle: Set the precedent for the postal rule.
Adams v Lindsell
Lindsell wrote to Adams offering to sell them some wool and asking for a reply ‘in the course of post’. The letter was delayed in the post. On receiving the letter, Adams posted a letter of acceptance on the same day. However, because of the delay, Lindsell assumed Adams did not want the wool and sold it to someone else.
Byrne v Tienhoven
Legal Principle: Sets the precedent for electronic methods of communication.
Entores v Miles (Lord Denning quote)
‘If a man shouts an offer to a man across a river but the reply is not heard because of a plane flying overhead, there is no contract. The offeree must wait and then shout back his acceptance so that the offeror can hear it.
Legal principle: timing is key for instantaneous communication.
Thomas and Gander v BPE solicitors (2010)
An email of acceptance was received at 6pm, on a Friday before the bank holiday. The email was not read until the Tuesday morning. BPE argued that acceptance was not effective from the moment it was received because it was after working hours. The court held that the context in which the 6pm email was sent meant that it was a transaction that could be completed that evening and didn’t consider 6pm to be outside of working hours. The email was available on a mobile to be read even though the defendant had gone home, it was reasonable that he could have sent an email.
