Invitation to treat
In some instances, a party may deny the existence of a contract by arguing that the other party purported to accept something which was in law not an offer but something else. It is therefore important to differentiate between an offer and an invitation to treat.
An offer is capable of being converted into an agreement by acceptance and consists of a definite promise to be bound which leaves the offeree the option of acceptance o refusal but when parties negotiate with a view to making a contract the preliminary communication that passes between them before a definite offer is made is usually referred to as invitations to treat (Harvey v Facey (1893)).
Where a person makes a request for information from a prospective supplier a to whether he can supply goods suitable for a specific purpose, this is a mere invitation to treat. Whether a statement is an offer or an invitation to treat depends primarily on the intention with which it was made.
Auctions
At auctions, as a general rule, the offer is made by the bidder and accepted by the auctioneer when he signifies his acceptance by the fall of the hammer (Payne v Cave). In this case an auctioneer’s request for bids was held to be an invitation to treat since the offer was actually made by the bidder.
The steps to a sale by auction are as follows:
The advertisement that an auction will take place on a certain day is an invitation to treat (Harris v Nickerson);
Putting up goods for sale, is again, an invitation to treat;
A bid by the purchaser is the offer; and
The fall of the hammer indicates the acceptance.
See: Sale of Goods Act, Cap. 90:10
Display of goods for sale
Despite what members of the general population may believe, generally the display of price-marked goods in a shop window or supermarket, is not an offer to sell goods, but an invitation to the customer to make an offer.
Case: Fisher v Bell
The defendant shopkeeper displayed in his shop window a flick knife accompanied by a price ticket displayed just behind it. He was charged with offering for sale a flick knife, contrary to s. 1 (1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
The court held that in accordance with the general principles of contract law, the display of the knife was not an offer of sale but merely an invitation to treat, and as such the defendant had not offered the knife for sale within the meaning of s1(1) of the Act. Although it was acknowledged that in ordinary language a layman might consider the knife to be offered for sale, in legal terms its position in the window was inviting customers to offer to buy it. The statute must be construed in accordance with the legal meaning, as
“…any statute must be looked at in light of the general law of the country, for Parliament must be taken to know the general law” (per Lord Parker C.J. at para. 4).
It is well established in contract law that the display of an item in a shop window is an invitation to potential customers to treat. The defendant was therefore not guilty of the offence with which he had been charged.
Advertisements
Generally, in order to determine whether an advertisement constitutes an offer or an invitation to treat the Court will consider the context in which the advertisement appears and the practical consequences of treating it as an offer or an invitation to treat – Carlill
It should be noted that advertisements are normally interpreted as invitations to treat. The case of Carlill speaks to the intention of the Defendant Company and the fact that by depositing money into an account specifically for the purpose of showing to the prospective customers that they were serious about their ‘offer’, displayed the an intention to be bound by their advertisement. This case also made it clear that it was indeed possible to make an offer to the world at large.
A distinction is generally made between advertisements for a unilateral contract, and those for a bilateral contract.
|