Offer
Case 1: Fisher v Bell 1961 (Offer)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- D displayed a flick knife on its - Lord Parker CJ held that the display
shop’s window. of an article with a price on it in a
- Display of such weapons for sale shop window was only an invitation
was an offence contrary to S.1(1) to treat and not an offer.
Restriction of Offensive Weapons
Act 1959.
Case 2: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (Offer / Acceptance by Performance)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- A newspaper advert placed by D - Courts held that the C was entitled to
stated that a 100p reward will be the reward.
paid by Carlill Carbolic Smoke Ball - The deposited of 1000p shows
Co to any person who contracts the seriousness and it’s not a sales
influenza after having used the ball 3 gimmick.
times daily for 2 weeks according to
the printed directions supplied with
each ball.
- 1000p is deposited with the Alliance
Bank, showing our sincerity.
- Mrs Carlill (C), purchased some
smoke balls and used them according
to the directions and still caught the
flu.
- She sought to claim the stated 100p
rewards.
Invitation to treat
Case 1: Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979) (negotiations are ITT)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- Council tenants wanted to buy - House of Lords ruled that Council
council houses. did not make an offer
- Completed application form and - The letter which stated the price was
received a letter from council stating merely a negotiation; an invitation to
price and that the council ‘may be treat.
prepared to sell’ the house.
- Mr. Gibson sent in his application.
1
, - Due to a political change, the council
was now in control by a different
party.
- They decided to stop selling council
houses.
- Mr. Gibson argued that the letter
was an offer to which he had already
accepted.
Case 2: Storer v Manchester City Council (1974) [Willing to sell are offer not ITT]
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- Similar case facts with Gibson - Courts ruled that this is an offer.
- but however in this case Mr. Storer
received a letter stating that ‘we are
willing to sell’ the price was
asserted.
Case 3: Partridge v Crittenden [advertisement are ITT]
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- D placed an advert in a classified - D was charged and convicted of the
section of a magazine offering some offence and appealed against his
bramble finches for sale. conviction.
- However, in S.6 Protection of Birds - Courts held that the advert was an
Act 1954, it made it an offence to invitation to treat is not an offer.
offer such birds for sales.
Case 4: Fisher v Bell (1960) [displays of goods are ITT]
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- D displayed a flick knife on its - Lord Parker CJ held that the display
shop’s window. of an article with a price on it in a
- Display of such weapons for sale shop window was only an invitation
was an offence contrary to S.1(1) to treat and not an offer.
Restriction of Offensive Weapons
Act 1959.
,Case 5: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd(1953)
[Displays of goods are ITT]
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- D was charged for offering a - Court ruled that the shelf display was
medicine for sale. The medicines like an advertisement for a bilateral
were displayed on a self-service contract and hence it was only an
shelf. ‘ITT’.
- Offer was made by a customer who
took the medicine to the cashier and
was accepted by the cashier.
Case 6: Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co. v Montefiore (Lapse of Time)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- D offered to purchase shares in the - Court held that the offer was no
C’s company at a certain price. longer open as due to the nature of
- 6 months later, C accepted this offer the subject matter of the contract the
by which time the value of the shares offer lapsed after a reasonable period
had fallen. of time.
- D had not withdrawn the offer but - Therefore there was no contract and
refused to go through with the sale. the claimant's action for specific
- C brought an action for specific performance was unsuccessful.
performance of the contract.
Case 7: Financings Ltd v Stimson (Failure of Precondition)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- A man was looking to buy a car from - Court held that there was no contract
a car dealer, but there was a due to a failure of the condition
condition that required the consent of
a finance company for it to go ahead.
- Two days after getting his car it was
stolen.
Case 8: Stevenson Jacques & Co v McLean (Request for more information)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- The parties agreed for the purchase - Courts held that no contract had been
and sale of a certain quantity of a formed, as D had simply asked for
product. more information and do not amount
to Counter-offer
, - The buyers asked whether they
would accept a certain payment for
the product.
Case 9: Bradbury v Morgan (1862) (Death of offeror/offeree)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- An offered to guarantee payment up - Courts held the offer lapsed.
to 100p by X in respect of goods to
be supplied by Bradbury on credit to
X.
- A died and B in ignorance continued
to supply goods to X.
Case 10:Byrne v Van Tienhoven (Revocation must be communicated)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- The D made an offer to P on 1st Oct - It was held that revocation was
but on 8th Oct they posted a letter effective only on the 20th Oct and
revoking the offer. since by then the P had accepted the
- This letter reached P on 20th Oct. D’s offer, there was a binding.
Meanwhile, P accepted D’s offer on
11th Oct in ignorance of the
revocation.
Case 11: Dickinson v Dodds (1876) (Withdrawal must be communicated by 3rd party)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- C knew D had already sold the house - Courts held that revocation was
by 4th person. effectively communicated.
- C still sent his acceptance.
Case 12: The Brimnes (1974) (Communication of withdrawal by telex will take place when
it is effective when it is received at the charterers office rather than when the telex is read)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- If offeree moves to a new address - Withdrawal is effective even if it
without notifying offeror, reaches offeree even if he fails to
withdrawal sent to the last known read it
Case 1: Fisher v Bell 1961 (Offer)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- D displayed a flick knife on its - Lord Parker CJ held that the display
shop’s window. of an article with a price on it in a
- Display of such weapons for sale shop window was only an invitation
was an offence contrary to S.1(1) to treat and not an offer.
Restriction of Offensive Weapons
Act 1959.
Case 2: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (Offer / Acceptance by Performance)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- A newspaper advert placed by D - Courts held that the C was entitled to
stated that a 100p reward will be the reward.
paid by Carlill Carbolic Smoke Ball - The deposited of 1000p shows
Co to any person who contracts the seriousness and it’s not a sales
influenza after having used the ball 3 gimmick.
times daily for 2 weeks according to
the printed directions supplied with
each ball.
- 1000p is deposited with the Alliance
Bank, showing our sincerity.
- Mrs Carlill (C), purchased some
smoke balls and used them according
to the directions and still caught the
flu.
- She sought to claim the stated 100p
rewards.
Invitation to treat
Case 1: Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979) (negotiations are ITT)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- Council tenants wanted to buy - House of Lords ruled that Council
council houses. did not make an offer
- Completed application form and - The letter which stated the price was
received a letter from council stating merely a negotiation; an invitation to
price and that the council ‘may be treat.
prepared to sell’ the house.
- Mr. Gibson sent in his application.
1
, - Due to a political change, the council
was now in control by a different
party.
- They decided to stop selling council
houses.
- Mr. Gibson argued that the letter
was an offer to which he had already
accepted.
Case 2: Storer v Manchester City Council (1974) [Willing to sell are offer not ITT]
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- Similar case facts with Gibson - Courts ruled that this is an offer.
- but however in this case Mr. Storer
received a letter stating that ‘we are
willing to sell’ the price was
asserted.
Case 3: Partridge v Crittenden [advertisement are ITT]
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- D placed an advert in a classified - D was charged and convicted of the
section of a magazine offering some offence and appealed against his
bramble finches for sale. conviction.
- However, in S.6 Protection of Birds - Courts held that the advert was an
Act 1954, it made it an offence to invitation to treat is not an offer.
offer such birds for sales.
Case 4: Fisher v Bell (1960) [displays of goods are ITT]
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- D displayed a flick knife on its - Lord Parker CJ held that the display
shop’s window. of an article with a price on it in a
- Display of such weapons for sale shop window was only an invitation
was an offence contrary to S.1(1) to treat and not an offer.
Restriction of Offensive Weapons
Act 1959.
,Case 5: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd(1953)
[Displays of goods are ITT]
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- D was charged for offering a - Court ruled that the shelf display was
medicine for sale. The medicines like an advertisement for a bilateral
were displayed on a self-service contract and hence it was only an
shelf. ‘ITT’.
- Offer was made by a customer who
took the medicine to the cashier and
was accepted by the cashier.
Case 6: Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co. v Montefiore (Lapse of Time)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- D offered to purchase shares in the - Court held that the offer was no
C’s company at a certain price. longer open as due to the nature of
- 6 months later, C accepted this offer the subject matter of the contract the
by which time the value of the shares offer lapsed after a reasonable period
had fallen. of time.
- D had not withdrawn the offer but - Therefore there was no contract and
refused to go through with the sale. the claimant's action for specific
- C brought an action for specific performance was unsuccessful.
performance of the contract.
Case 7: Financings Ltd v Stimson (Failure of Precondition)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- A man was looking to buy a car from - Court held that there was no contract
a car dealer, but there was a due to a failure of the condition
condition that required the consent of
a finance company for it to go ahead.
- Two days after getting his car it was
stolen.
Case 8: Stevenson Jacques & Co v McLean (Request for more information)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- The parties agreed for the purchase - Courts held that no contract had been
and sale of a certain quantity of a formed, as D had simply asked for
product. more information and do not amount
to Counter-offer
, - The buyers asked whether they
would accept a certain payment for
the product.
Case 9: Bradbury v Morgan (1862) (Death of offeror/offeree)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- An offered to guarantee payment up - Courts held the offer lapsed.
to 100p by X in respect of goods to
be supplied by Bradbury on credit to
X.
- A died and B in ignorance continued
to supply goods to X.
Case 10:Byrne v Van Tienhoven (Revocation must be communicated)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- The D made an offer to P on 1st Oct - It was held that revocation was
but on 8th Oct they posted a letter effective only on the 20th Oct and
revoking the offer. since by then the P had accepted the
- This letter reached P on 20th Oct. D’s offer, there was a binding.
Meanwhile, P accepted D’s offer on
11th Oct in ignorance of the
revocation.
Case 11: Dickinson v Dodds (1876) (Withdrawal must be communicated by 3rd party)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- C knew D had already sold the house - Courts held that revocation was
by 4th person. effectively communicated.
- C still sent his acceptance.
Case 12: The Brimnes (1974) (Communication of withdrawal by telex will take place when
it is effective when it is received at the charterers office rather than when the telex is read)
FACTS JUDGEMENT
- If offeree moves to a new address - Withdrawal is effective even if it
without notifying offeror, reaches offeree even if he fails to
withdrawal sent to the last known read it
