100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 3 pages.
IssuesIn the case for Alan, Bernard, Charleen and Damien, Alan has opened an invitationto treat, informing people around him that his Commercial Law text book is on sale.In a similar case to Fisher v Bell (Fisher v Bell , n.d.), the court held that shopsdisplaying goods with price tag is not an offer but an invitation to treat and peoplewho are interested to purchase are to come up with an offer and in this case for Alan,he has put up a sale of good with a price tag, however it was not an offer. Just likethe case for Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke BallCo, 2018), the court held that the advertisement can be accepted by anyone whocomes across the invitation to treat, however insisting that it was not an offer. Beforeany contract is formed, there must be an offer and an acceptance that exactlymatches. The offer and acceptance indicates the willingness of both parties enteringinto a legally bound agreement. Hence if either of the parties are unwilling, then thecontract will not be a legally bound agreement.Alan v BernardBernard is Alan’s friend on Facebook and saw his post on 1stof November 2015 re-garding the invitation to treat of the Commercial Law study materials. Bernard thenapproached Alan a day after Alan has opened the invitation to treat to make acounter offer. In this particular case when Bernard has made a counter offer, it putsthe original offer down effectively and Bernard has become the “Offeror”. However,Alan did not reply to Bernard’s offer only until the 3rdof November 2015 which was aday after Bernard counter offered him. Alan emphasized that the selling price of hisstudy materials for Commercial Law was $200 instead of $150 and this has showedthat Alan is unwilling to accept the offer from Bernard. Alan had also informedBernard that there was another offer given to him. Thus, no contract was formed be-tween them as of 3rdof November 2015. Even though Bernard prepared the cashand mailed it to Alan on the 4thof November 2015, Alan was not informed about theoffer and had not accepted it. Hence, no contract was formed again. In a similar casestudy of Hyde v Wrench (Hyde v Wrench (1840), n.d.), the court held that no contractwas made as the initial offer was effectively destroyed by the counter-offer. This willsummarize us to our main point that no contract was made between them andBernard will not be able to sue Alan as they are legally bound by any contracts.