Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 274 views

    Distinction Between An Invitation To Treat and An Offer Is Important in Contract Law

    Uploaded by

    mohsin
    It is important to distinguish between an invitation to treat and an offer in contract law. An invitation to treat represents preliminary negotiations and does not intend to create a binding agreement, while an offer is a statement of willingness to be bound if accepted. Case law has established that advertisements, catalogues, and displaying goods are generally invitations to treat rather than offers, unless the language and circumstances clearly indicate a willingness to be bound without further negotiation. For an advertisement or display to constitute a valid offer, it must be sufficiently definite and include consideration or serious intent to be bound without further agreement. The distinction depends on interpreting the intentions of the parties from the facts of each case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Distinction Between An Invitation To Treat and An Offer Is Important in Contract Law

    Uploaded by

    mohsin
    274 views2 pages
    It is important to distinguish between an invitation to treat and an offer in contract law. An invitation to treat represents preliminary negotiations and does not intend to create a binding agreement, while an offer is a statement of willingness to be bound if accepted. Case law has established that advertisements, catalogues, and displaying goods are generally invitations to treat rather than offers, unless the language and circumstances clearly indicate a willingness to be bound without further negotiation. For an advertisement or display to constitute a valid offer, it must be sufficiently definite and include consideration or serious intent to be bound without further agreement. The distinction depends on interpreting the intentions of the parties from the facts of each case.

    Original Description:

    LEARN WITH SIR MOHSIN EGC DHA PHASE V LAHORE

    Original Title

    Distinction Between an Invitation to Treat and an Offer is Important in Contract Law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    It is important to distinguish between an invitation to treat and an offer in contract law. An invitation to treat represents preliminary negotiations and does not intend to create a binding agreement, while an offer is a statement of willingness to be bound if accepted. Case law has established that advertisements, catalogues, and displaying goods are generally invitations to treat rather than offers, unless the language and circumstances clearly indicate a willingness to be bound without further negotiation. For an advertisement or display to constitute a valid offer, it must be sufficiently definite and include consideration or serious intent to be bound without further agreement. The distinction depends on interpreting the intentions of the parties from the facts of each case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    274 views2 pages

    Distinction Between An Invitation To Treat and An Offer Is Important in Contract Law

    Uploaded by

    mohsin
    It is important to distinguish between an invitation to treat and an offer in contract law. An invitation to treat represents preliminary negotiations and does not intend to create a binding agreement, while an offer is a statement of willingness to be bound if accepted. Case law has established that advertisements, catalogues, and displaying goods are generally invitations to treat rather than offers, unless the language and circumstances clearly indicate a willingness to be bound without further negotiation. For an advertisement or display to constitute a valid offer, it must be sufficiently definite and include consideration or serious intent to be bound without further agreement. The distinction depends on interpreting the intentions of the parties from the facts of each case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Using relevant case law explain why the distinction between an invitation to

    treat and an offer is important in Contract law.

    An 'invitation to treat' is inviting parties to create a contract. It represents the preliminary stage of
    negotiation. A person making an invitation to treat does not intend to be bound as soon as it is
    accepted by the person to whom the statement is addressed. An invitation to treat is always a
    fixed price and a choice; it is not an offer to sell. Newspapers and catalogues are examples of
    invitations to treat.

    An 'offer' is defined as a statement of willingness where the person who is making the offer
    (offeror), promises to be bound in a contract if the terms of the offer are accepted by the person
    accepting the offer (offeree). An individual or organisation can make an offer to another
    individual (bilateral) another company or to anyone in the world (unilateral). An offer can be
    "express"- for example if A tells B he will sell his radio for �30. An offer can also be
    "implied" from conduct - for example when A brings goods to the supermarket cash desk.

    It is tough to differentiate between an invitation to treat and an offer as it depends on the


    intention of the party making an invitation to treat which is shown in Pharmaceutical Society of
    GB v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd [1932] 1 QB 401, where the defendants changed the format of
    their shop from a counter service to self-service. The Queen's Bench and the Court of Appeal
    rejected this argument. The offer originated from the customer as soon as the item was put in the
    basket. The defendants remained free to accept or reject the offer. If they did accept, then this
    took place at the cash desk in the presence of a registered pharmacist, therefore there was no
    breach of the Act. The display of goods on the supermarket's shelves was merely an invitation to
    customers to make offers to buy.

    Parties can be invited through advertisements such as magazines or newspapers- Partridge v


    Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204 QB. This is the famous case in which the plaintiff had put an
    advertisement in a newspaper for hens. The plaintiff was charged with illegally offering for sale
    a wild life bird conflicting the Protection of Birds Act 1954. It was held that the advertisement
    was an invitation to treat rather than an offer for sale,[1]. As a result of this the plaintiff was not
    guilty of the offence. The principle from Boots cash chemists was also used in Fisher v Bell
    [1961] 1 QB 394 where a shopkeeper displayed a knife in his window and under the Offensive
    Weapons Act 1959, it was illegal to offer for sale offensive weapons. The Court of Appeal held
    that the display of the knife in the window was an invitation to treat rather than an offer for sale
    therefore no offence was committed.

    One type of offer is- Bilateral offer. This is an agreement by an exchange of promises between
    two parties- Thornton v Shoe Lane parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 16. The plaintiff went to park his
    car in the defendant's automatic car park. A notice was visible at the entrance stating the charges
    and a sign-'cars parked at own risk'. Plaintiff took a ticket from the machine. The ticket stated the
    time of arrival and small print that it was 'issued subjects to conditions displayed on the premises'
    It was held the ticket came out to late since contract was concluded when the motorist drove up
    to the machine. Also an automatic ticket machine was an offer, rather than an invitation to
    treat.[2]

    A unilateral offer is an offer open to the world at large. In the famous case of Carlil v Carbolic
    Smoke Ball Co. Ltd [1893] 1 QB, the defendants sold a smoke ball and put an advertisement in
    the newspaper claiming they would play �100 to anyone who contracted influenza after using
    the smoke ball for a specified period. The plaintiff contracted influenza after having purchased
    and used as directed and claimed the reward. The defendants argued that it was impossible to
    contract to the whole world, nevertheless this was rejected by the Court of Appeal. The court had
    identified that for an advertisement to be viewed as an offer, it has to be very specific. In this
    case there were other implications, for example �1000 was placed in a bank account to show
    that it was serious, this highlighted the validity of the offer. We see the more specific an
    advertisement the more likely it is to be seen as an offer.

    Overall, It is extremely important to distinguish the differences between invitation to treat and
    offer, if the differences are not recognized the whole meaning and purpose could lead in to a
    different understanding which is incorrect.

    Word Count- 1,014

    (3 Stars, due to the foregoing.)

    You might also like