The defendant was charged with the offence of offering for sale a flick knife displayed in his window.
“the display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is an invitation to treat.”
Fisher v. Bell [1961] 1 QB 394
An advertisement in a periodical which said “Bramble finches 25 shillings each” - the advertisement was an invitation to treat and not an offer to sell- no intention
Partridge v. Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421
- prosecuted for allowing sale of listed poisons without supervision of registered pharmacist - self-service shop
- The Court decided that the goods displayed were merely invitations to treat, the customer made an offer when he presented the goods for payment at which stage the pharmacist could accept or reject the offer. The contract for sale took place at the cash desk and not when the goods were placed in the basket.
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists [1953] 1 QB 401
- defendant store placed a newspaper advertisement offering to sell three furs worth $100 for $1 at 9am sharp on Saturday on a “first come, first served basis”. A week later the shop published a second advertisement offering two new mink scarves worth $90 dollars for $1.
- plaintiff was there on both occasions but was refused
- “…where the offer is clear, definite and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation, it constitutes an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract.”
- “while an advertiser has the right at any time before acceptance to modify his offer, he does not have the right, after acceptance to impose new or arbitrary conditions not contained in the published offer.”
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (1957) 86 NW (2nd) 689
- The plaintiff was given the option to buy property for £750 pounds which would remain open for 14 days
- The following day the vendor’s secretary posted a letter of revocation. Subsequent to the posting of the letter of revocation, but before its arrival, the plaintiff posted a letter of acceptance.
- The court held that the contract was formed when the letter of acceptance was posted but the revocation letter was not effective until it was received.
Henthorn v. Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27
revocation must be communicated before acceptance occurs- letters between London and New York - revocation received 9 days after acceptance was posted -postal rule - contract exists since acceptance is posted
Byrne v. Van Tienhoven (1880) 5 CPD 344
offer to sell property 100 GBP, counter-offer of 950 GBP, not possible to then accept original offer
- court took the view that the original offer had been terminated by the plaintiff’s counter offer
Hyde v. Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334
- Pepsi ran a loyalty campaign where customers could exchange points from product purchases for merchandise.
A commercial humorously suggested that 7,000,000 points could redeem a Harrier jet worth $37.4 million.
John Leonard raised $700,000 and sent a check to Pepsi to “buy” the jet under the promotion terms.
Pepsi rejected Leonard’s claim, calling the jet offer “fanciful and humorous.”
No Offer: The court ruled that the advertisement was not a serious offer under contract law.
Reasonable Person Test: It found no reasonable person would believe Pepsi intended to offer a $37.4 million jet for $700,000.
Puffery: The commercial was deemed humorous and exaggerated (“mere puffery”).
Statute of Frauds: The alleged contract failed because it lacked a written agreement, as required for high-value contracts.
Leonard v Pepsi Co
- employer offered half pay for those who join defense forces
- acceptance was when employee enlisted in army - open to all
Billings v Arnott
- held that notification by a third party of an offer’s withdrawal is effective just like a withdrawal by the person who made an offer.
- not necessary for offeror themselves to communicate revocation- third party enough
Dickson v Dodds
statement of lowest price (900 GBP) for property Bumper Hall Pen - opinion of price not an offer
Harvey v Facey
The company advertised a £100 reward for anyone who contracted influenza after using their product as directed.
The ad claimed £1000 was deposited in a bank to show sincerity.
plaintiff used the product as instructed but still contracted influenza and claimed the reward.
The company refused, arguing the ad was not a legally binding offer.
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal held that:
The advertisement was a unilateral offer directed at anyone who fulfilled its terms.
Using the product as directed constituted acceptance of the offer.
Purchasing or using the smoke ball was consideration, as it was a detriment to plaintiff and a benefit to the company.
The deposit of £1000 demonstrated a serious intention to create legal relations.
Implications:
Established that advertisements can create binding unilateral contracts if terms are clear and definitive.
Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball
- display of coat in window not an offer but invitation to treat
- not guilty of offering coat on sale “on credit terms” without indicating those terms
a Minister for Industry and Commerce v Pim Bros
