Issues
In the case for Alan, Bernard, Charleen and Damien, Alan has opened an invitation
to 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 [1961], n.d.), the court held that shops
displaying goods with price tag is not an offer but an invitation to treat and people
who 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 like
the case for Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Co, 2018), the court held that the advertisement can be accepted by anyone who
comes across the invitation to treat, however insisting that it was not an offer. Before
any contract is formed, there must be an offer and an acceptance that exactly
matches. The offer and acceptance indicates the willingness of both parties entering
into a legally bound agreement. Hence if either of the parties are unwilling, then the
contract will not be a legally bound agreement.
Alan v Bernard
Bernard is Alan’s friend on Facebook and saw his post on 1
st
of November 2015 re-
garding the invitation to treat of the Commercial Law study materials. Bernard then
approached Alan a day after Alan has opened the invitation to treat to make a
counter offer. In this particular case when Bernard has made a counter offer, it puts
the original offer down effectively and Bernard has become the “Offeror”. However,
Alan did not reply to Bernard’s offer only until the 3
rd
of November 2015 which was a
day after Bernard counter offered him. Alan emphasized that the selling price of his
study materials for Commercial Law was $200 instead of $150 and this has showed
that Alan is unwilling to accept the offer from Bernard. Alan had also informed
Bernard that there was another offer given to him. Thus, no contract was formed be-
tween them as of 3
rd
of November 2015. Even though Bernard prepared the cash
and mailed it to Alan on the 4
th
of November 2015, Alan was not informed about the
offer and had not accepted it. Hence, no contract was formed again. In a similar case
study of Hyde v Wrench (Hyde v Wrench (1840), n.d.), the court held that no contract
was made as the initial offer was effectively destroyed by the counter-offer. This will
summarize us to our main point that no contract was made between them and
Bernard will not be able to sue Alan as they are legally bound by any contracts.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 3 pages?
- Fall '19
- Law
