- This topic has 7 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
I sometimes find it a bit difficult to identify as to whether a statement is an Offer or an Invitation to Treat. Although I have this general idea that any Statement in an Advertisement that gives an indication of a Bilateral Contract would be treated as an Invitation to Offer, whereas in case it gives an indication of a Unilateral Contract it would be regarded as an Offer.
There is this question in Kaplan’s Exam Kit, which goes by the name of “Ann”, the question has made its presence felt in some past F4 Examination.
Ann owns a shop selling prints. She placed an advertisement in the Friday edition of her local paper stating: “Opportunity to own a unique Bell print for £500 cash. Offer valid for one day only — tomorrow Saturday.”Ans – The wording of
Ann’s advert was in sufficiently categorical terms for it to have been an offer to the world at
large, stating her unreserved commitment to enter into a contract with the first person who
accepted it.I personally have no idea how is this statement an Offer, I rather felt this is an Invitation to Treat, as there does not appears to be any Act that would be a manifestation of an Acceptance. Can you please help me . Looking forward for your Explanation
This is similar to a past exam question about a man sitting in a cafe with friends near the wall of a small harbour. He overhears a loud-mouth saying that he would pay £100 to the first person to swim across the harbour.
This offer was not directed to any specified individual. Therefore it was addressed to the World at large.
Cutting a long story short, a man who had heard the loud-mouth did dive into the harbour and swam across. Could he claim the £100? Was the loud-mouth making an offer or were his words an invitation? Was the cross-harbour swim an acceptance of an offer?
Acceptance of an offer doesn’t need to be communicated to the offeror. It may be effected simply by the subsequent actions of a person that is aware of the offer.
In the case of Ann and her unique Bell print, the acceptance would be by entering her gallery and paying £500 cash
OK?
Thankyou for you response Tutor. but the scenario you have mentioned it is clear that the offeror is asking for some act “to swim across the harbour”, but in case of Ann there’s is nothing which demands for a particular act.
Rather it appears to be a normal advertisement where someone is trying to sell his/her product.
Could you help me how to exactly determine whether an Advertisement is an Offer or an Invitation to Treat. Like what principles do you apply to determine whether a statement is an Invitation to Offer or an Offer
Hi again
I remember the exam and the question. I believe that the question also included the information that someone responded to the advert and accepted the offer but needed to go to the bank to draw out the money.
Am I correct in thinking that you have not given me the full Kaplan question? Certainly from what you have given me there’s doubt about the status of Ann’s advert. Please check again to see if you have missed any additional information in your post.
Apologies for the late reply Tutor. This is the complete scenario.
Ann owns a shop selling prints. She placed an advertisement in the Friday edition of her local paper stating:
‘Opportunity to own a unique Bell print for £500 cash. Offer valid for one day only — tomorrow Saturday.’ When Con saw the advert, he immediately posted a letter of acceptance.On Saturday, Di asked Ann if she would take a cheque for £500, but she refused to accept the cheque and told her she could only have the print for cash.
Later that day Ann agreed to sell the print to Evi, who would pay on collection the following Monday afternoon.
On Monday morning Con’s letter arrived. Later that day Di returned to the shop to pay for the print with cash, shortly followed by Evi’
Thanks again Vikas. Sadly, I’m pretty sure that Kaplan have not reproduced the question faithfully. In the exam, I believe that, when Ann told Di that she would only accept cash, Di told Ann ‘OK, I’ll go to the bank to draw out the cash’
This mini interchange between Ann and Di was sufficient in the real exam to indicate proper acceptance by Di. The reason? Because Ann now knew that Di was taking the steps necessary to come back with the readies and those necessary steps indicated (in the examiner’s mind) sufficient intent to qualify as acceptance
Con’s posted letter is surely not a valid acceptance. Really? Acceptance by post is effective from the moment it is put into the postal system, properly stamped and addressed. And both parties, crucially, must have thought that acceptance by post was appropriate. Merely from the wording of Ann’s advert it can be seen that postal acceptance was not appropriate in Ann’s mind.
Are you ok now?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.