Offer A03

Question 1

difference between the idea of an offer and invitation to treat

Answer 1

• its confusing for both parties - we see in Fisher v Bell that displaying goods is an invitation to treat and the justification for this is its based on the traditional view of freedom of contract - this is also a problem for goods on a shelf as the public belief is that it is an offer they can accept or deny rather than an IVT - should this be changed to mirror this
  + this change could be a problem if an incorrect price is put on the label or if a customer wants to change their mind before reaching the till - this would create inconvenient situations

Question 2

Duration of an offer

Answer 2

• how long an offer remains open for can be confusing - impossible to legislate all scenarios as it will be based on individual circumstances - unless they state the length an offer will be open for like in Routhledge v Grant then what is “reasonable” will decide whether the contract will elapse - in Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore this was 5 months

Question 3

Postal rule

Answer 3

• does not apply to terminating an offer only acceptance which reduces the overall flexibility both parties have - on top of this the person may believe they have already terminated the offer yet they will be subject to a binding contract with no knowledge such as in Bryne v Van Tienhoven

Question 4

rules and principles

Answer 4

+ offer has well established principles and rules that are clear and well written as its been refined through multiple cases that have explored different scenarios

Question 5

Reforms

Answer 5

1) all invitations to treat should be treated as offers to mirror public belief - potentially could cause problems with age restricted goods and fraud
2) place onus on the offeror to inform the offeree of the revocation - if it doesn’t place too much burden seems reasonable
3) the formal requirement of offer and acceptance should be replaced by a general requirement that there is clear agreement between both parties