Cases on Contract Essay
The suspect made the highest command for the plaintiff’s goods at an auction sale. but he withdrew his command before the autumn of the auctioneer’s cock. It was held that the suspect was non bound to buy the goods. His command amounted to an offer which he was entitled to retreat at any clip before the auctioneer signified credence by strike harding down the cock. Note: The common jurisprudence regulation laid down in this instance has now been codified in s57 ( 2 ) Sale of Goods Act 1979. Fisher V Bell ( 1960 )
A tradesman displayed a flick knife with a monetary value ticket in the window. The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 made it an offense to ‘offer for sale’ a ‘flick knife’ . The tradesman was prosecuted in the magistrates’ tribunal but the Justices declined to convict on the footing that the knife had non. in jurisprudence. been ‘offered for sale’ . This determination was upheld by the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court. Lord Parker CJ stated: “It is absolutely clear that harmonizing to the ordinary jurisprudence of contract the show of an article with a monetary value on it in a store window is simply an invitation to handle. It is in no sense an offer for sale the credence of which constitutes a contract. ” PSGB v Boots ( 1953 )
The defendants’ store was adapted to the “self-service” system. The inquiry for the Court of Appeal was whether the gross revenues of certain drugs were effected by or under the supervising of a registered druggist. The inquiry was answered in the affirmatory. Somervell LJ stated that “in the instance of an ordinary store. although goods are displayed and it is intended that clients should travel and take what they want. the contract is non completed until. the client holding indicated the articles which he needs. the tradesman. or person on his behalf. accepts that offer. Then the contract is completed. ” Partridge v Crittenden ( 1968 )
It was an offense to offer for sale certain wild birds. The suspect had advertised in a periodical ‘Quality Bramblefinch pricks. Bramblefinch biddies. 25s each’ . His strong belief was quashed by the High Court. Lord Parker CJ stated that when one is covering with advertizements and handbills. unless they so come from makers. there is concern sense in their being construed as invitations to handle and non offers for sale. In a really different context Lord Herschell in Grainger V Gough ( Surveyor of Taxes ) [ 1896 ] AC 325. said this in covering with a monetary value list: “The transmittal of such a monetary value list does non amount to an offer to provide an limitless measure of the vino described at the monetary value named. so that every bit shortly as an order is given there is a adhering contract to provide that measure. If it were so. the merchandiser might happen himself involved in any figure of contractual duties to provide vino of a peculiar description which he would be rather unable to transport out. his stock of vino of that description being needfully limited. ” Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co ( 1893 )
An advert was placed for ‘smoke balls’ to forestall grippe. The advert offered to pay ?100 if anyone contracted grippe after utilizing the ball. The company deposited ?1. 000 with the Alliance Bank to demo their earnestness in the affair. The complainant bought one of the balls but contracted grippe. It was held that she was entitled to retrieve the ?100. The Court of Appeal held that: ( a ) the sedimentation of money showed an purpose to be bound. therefore the advert was an offer ; ( B ) it was possible to do an offer to the universe at big. which is accepted by anyone who buys a smokeball ; ( degree Celsius ) the offer of protection would cover the period of usage ; and ( vitamin D ) the purchasing and utilizing of the smokeball amounted to acceptance. Harvey V Facey ( 1893 )
The complainants sent a wire to the suspect. “Will you sell Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest hard currency price” . The suspects answer was “Lowest monetary value ?900” . The complainants telegraphed “We agree to purchase … for ?900 asked by you” . It was held by the Privy Council that the suspects wire was non an offer but merely an indicant of the minimal monetary value the suspects would desire. if they decided to sell. The complainants 2nd wire could non be an credence. Gibson V MCC ( 1979 )
The council sent to renters inside informations of a strategy for the sale of council houses. The complainant instantly replied. paying the ?3 disposal fee. The council replied: “The corporation may be prepared to sell the house to you at the purchase monetary value of ?2. 725 less 20 per cent. ?2. 180 ( freehold ) . ” The missive gave inside informations about a mortgage and went on “This missive should non be regarded as a house offer of a mortgage. If you would wish to do a formal application to purchase your council house. delight complete the enclosed application signifier and return it to me every bit shortly as possible. ” G filled in and returned the signifier. Labour took control of the council from the Conservatives and instructed their officers non to sell council houses unless they were lawfully bound to make so.
The council declined to sell to G. In the House of Lords. Lord Diplock stated that words italicised seem to do it rather impossible to interpret this missive as a contractual offer capable of being converted into a lawfully enforceable unfastened contract for the sale of land by G’s written credence of it. It was a missive puting out the fiscal footings on which it may be the council would be prepared to see a sale and purchase in due class. Harvela V Royal Trust ( 1985 )
Royal Trust invited offers by certain stamp for portions in a company and undertook to accept the highest offer. Harvela bid $ 2. 175. 000 and Sir Leonard Outerbridge bid $ 2. 100. 000 or $ 100. 000 in surplus of any other offer. Royal Trust accepted Sir Leonard’s offer. The test justice gave judgement for Harvela. In the House of Lords. Lord Templeman stated: “To represent a fixed command sale all that was necessary was that the sellers should ask for confidential offers and should set about to accept the highest offer. Such was the signifier of the invitation. It follows that the invitation upon its true building created a fixed command sale and that Sir Leonard was non entitled to subject and the sellers were non entitled to accept a referential command. ”
Blackpool Aero Club V Blackpool Borough Council ( 1990 ) BBC invited stamps to run an airdrome. to be submitted by midday on a fixed day of the month. The complainants stamp was delivered by manus and put in the Town Hall missive box at 11am. However. the stamp was recorded as holding been received late and was non considered. The nine sued for breach of an alleged guarantee that a stamp received by the deadline would be considered. The justice awarded amendss for breach of contract and carelessness. The council’s entreaty was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. ACCEPTANCE
Brogden V MRC ( 1877 ) B supplied coal to MRC for many old ages without an understanding. MRC sent a bill of exchange understanding to B who filled in the name of an arbiter. signed it and returned it to MRC’s agent who put it in his desk. Coal was ordered and supplied in conformity with the understanding but after a difference arose B said there was no binding understanding. It was held that B’s returning of the amended papers was non an credence but a counter-offer which could be regarded as accepted either when MRC ordered coal or when B really supplied. By their behavior the parties had indicated their blessing of the understanding.