Invitation to treat

Last updated

An invitation to treat (or invitation to bargain in the United States) is a concept within contract law which comes from the Latin phrase invitatio ad offerendum, meaning "inviting an offer". According to Professor Andrew Burrows, an invitation to treat is

Contents

an expression of willingness to negotiate. A person making an invitation to treat does not intend to be bound as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom the statement is addressed. [1]

Sometimes a person may not offer to sell their goods, but makes some statement or gives some information with a view to inviting others to make offers on the basis. Likewise, inviting persons to an auction, where goods to be auctioned are displayed, is not an offer for the sale of goods. The offer is made by the intending buyers in the form of bid. Such an offer (bid), when accepted by the fall of hammer or in some other customary way, will result in a Contract. A contract is a legally binding voluntary agreement formed when one person makes an offer, and the other accepts it. There may be some preliminary discussion before an offer is formally made. Such pre-contractual representations are known variously as "invitations to treat", "requests for information" or "statements of intention".

True offers may be accepted to form a contract, whereas representations such as invitations to treat may not. However, although an invitation to treat cannot be accepted it should not be ignored, for it may nevertheless affect the offer. For example, where an offer is made in response to an invitation to treat, the offer may incorporate the terms of the invitation to treat (unless the offer expressly incorporates different terms). If, as in the Boots case (described below) the offer is made by an action without any negotiations—such as presenting goods to a cashier—the offer will be presumed to be on the terms of the invitation to treat.

Case law

Generally, advertisements are not offers but invitations to treat, so the person advertising is not compelled to sell. In Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204, a defendant who was charged with "offering for sale protected birds"—bramblefinch cocks and hens that he had advertised for sale in a newspaper—was not offering to sell them. Lord Parker CJ said it did not make business sense for advertisements to be offers, as the person making the advertisement may find himself in a situation where he would be contractually obliged to sell more goods than he actually owned.

In certain circumstances called unilateral contracts, an advertisement can be an offer; as in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256, where it was held that the defendants, who advertised that they would pay £100 to anyone who sniffed a smoke ball in the prescribed manner and yet caught influenza, were contractually obliged to pay £100 to whoever accepted it by performing the required acts.

A display of goods for sale in a shop window or within a shop is an invitation to treat, as in the Boots case, [2] a leading case concerning supermarkets. The shop owner is thus not obliged to sell the goods, even if signage such as "special offer" accompanies the display. Also, in Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, the display of a flick knife for sale in a shop did not contravene legislation which prohibited "offering for sale an offensive weapon". If a shop mistakenly displays an item for sale at a very low price it is not obliged to sell it for that amount. [3]

For an offer to be capable of becoming binding on acceptance, the offer must be definite, clear, and objectively intended to be capable of acceptance.

The tender process is a debated issue. In the case of Spencer v Harding , [4] the defendants offered to sell stock by tender, but the court held that there was no promise to sell to the highest bidder, merely an invitation for offers which they could then accept or reject at will. In exceptional circumstances, an invitation for tenders may be an offer, as in Harvela Investments v Royal Trust of Canada [1986], [5] where the court held that because defendants had made clear an intention to accept the highest tender, then the invitation to tender was an offer accepted by the person making the highest tender. The Harvela case also made it clear that "referential bids" (e.g. "$2,100,000 or $101,000 in excess of any other offer which you may receive, whichever is the higher", as in the Harvela case) are void as being "contrary to public policy and not cricket".

Auctions

In England, auctions are governed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended). Section 57(2) provides: "A sale by auction is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of the hammer, or in other customary manner. Until the announcement is made any bidder may retract his bid." S. 57(3) provides further: "An auction sale may be subject to a reserve price". However, if the auction is held without reserve then the auctioneer is obliged to sell to the highest bidder. [6] [7] It is implicit from Payne v Cave (1789), [8] an early case concerning auctions, that each bid is deemed to expire when others make higher bids; but some auctioneers (such as eBay) have lawfully amended this presumption so that, should a higher bidder withdraw his bid, they may accept a lower one.[ further explanation needed ]

See also

Notes

  1. Burrows, A. (2009) [2007]. "Offer and Acceptance". A Casebook on Contract (2nd ed.). Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. p. 5.
  2. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] EWCA Civ 6 (5 February 1953), Court of Appeal (England and Wales)
  3. "Business: The Economy Argos – an invitation to 'treat'". BBC News. 8 September 1999. Retrieved 8 July 2011.
  4. Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561
  5. Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] AC 207
  6. Warlow v Harrison (1859) 1 E & E 309
  7. Barry v Davies (Heathcote Ball & Co.) [2000] 1 WLR 1962
  8. Payne v Cave (1789) 3 TR 148

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Auction</span> Process of offering goods or services up for bids

An auction is usually a process of buying and selling goods or services by offering them up for bids, taking bids, and then selling the item to the highest bidder or buying the item from the lowest bidder. Some exceptions to this definition exist and are described in the section about different types. The branch of economic theory dealing with auction types and participants' behavior in auctions is called auction theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dutch auction</span> Type of auction which begins with a high asking price, and lowers it.

A Dutch auction is one of several similar types of auctions for buying or selling goods. Most commonly, it means an auction in which the auctioneer begins with a high asking price in the case of selling, and lowers it until some participant accepts the price, or it reaches a predetermined reserve price. This type of price auction is most commonly used for goods that are required to be sold quickly such as flowers, fresh produce, or tobacco. A Dutch auction has also been called a clock auction or open-outcry descending-price auction. This type of auction shows the advantage of speed since a sale never requires more than one bid. It is strategically similar to a first-price sealed-bid auction.

<i>Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co</i> English contract law case

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 is an English contract law decision by the Court of Appeal, which held an advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms. It is notable for its treatment of contract and of puffery in advertising, for its curious subject matter associated with medical quackery, and how the influential judges developed the law in inventive ways. Carlill is frequently discussed as an introductory contract case, and may often be the first legal case a law student studies in the law of contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Offer and acceptance</span> Two components of agreement

Offer and acceptance are generally recognised as essential requirements for the formation of a contract, and analysis of their operation is a traditional approach in contract law. This classical approach to contract formation has been modified by developments in the law of estoppel, misleading conduct, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and power of acceptance.

<i>Felthouse v Bindley</i>

Felthouse v Bindley [1862] EWHC CP J35, is the leading English contract law case on the rule that one cannot impose an obligation on another to reject one's offer. This is sometimes misleadingly expressed as a rule that "silence cannot amount to acceptance".

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] EWCA Civ 6 is a famous English contract law decision on the nature of an offer. The Court held that the display of a product in a store with a price attached is not sufficient to be considered an offer, and upheld the concept of an invitation to treat.

<i>Partridge v Crittenden</i>

Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204 is an English legal case which was heard by the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of England and Wales on appeal from Chester magistrates' court, and is well known for establishing the legal precedent in English contract law that advertisements are usually considered to be invitations to treat.

<i>Spencer v Harding</i>

Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561 is an English contract law case concerning the requirements of offer and acceptance in the formation of a contract. The case established that an offer inviting tenders to be submitted for the purchase of stock did not amount to an offer capable of acceptance to sell that stock, but rather amounted to an invitation to treat.

<i>Fisher v Bell</i>

Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 is an English contract law case concerning the requirements of offer and acceptance in the formation of a contract. The case established that, where goods are displayed in a shop, such display is treated as an invitation to treat by the seller, and not an offer. The offer is instead made when the customer presents the item to the cashier together with payment. Acceptance occurs at the point the cashier takes payment.

Harris v Nickerson (1873) LR 8 QB 286 is an English law case concerning the requirements of offer and acceptance in the formation of a contract. The case established that an advertisement that goods will be put up for auction does not constitute an offer to any person that the goods will actually be put up, and that the advertiser is therefore free to withdraw the goods from the auction at any time prior to the auction. All three judges concurred but issued separate judgments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian contract law</span> Overview of contract law in Canada

Canadian contract law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian contract law is derived from English contract law, though it has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867. While Québecois contract law was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of contract law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. Individual common law provinces have codified certain contractual rules in a Sale of Goods Act, resembling equivalent statutes elsewhere in the Commonwealth. As most aspects of contract law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, contract law may differ even between the country's common law provinces and territories. Conversely; as the law regarding bills of exchange and promissory notes, trade and commerce, maritime law, and banking among other related areas is governed by federal law under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867; aspects of contract law pertaining to these topics are harmonised between Québec and the common law provinces.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agreement in English law</span>

In English contract law, an agreement establishes the first stage in the existence of a contract. The three main elements of contractual formation are whether there is (1) offer and acceptance (agreement) (2) consideration (3) an intention to be legally bound.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Contract</span> Legally binding document establishing rights and duties between parties

A contract is an agreement that specifies certain legally enforceable rights and obligations pertaining to two or more parties. A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to transfer any of those at a future date, and the activities and intentions of the parties entering into a contract may be referred to as contracting. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or equitable remedies such as specific performance or rescission. A binding agreement between actors in international law is known as a treaty.

Payne v Cave (1789) 3 TR 148 is an old English contract law case, which stands for the proposition that an auctioneer's request for bids is not an offer but an invitation to treat. The bidders make the offers which can be accepted by the auctioneer.

<i>Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd</i>

Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1977] is an English contract law case, concerning unilateral contracts, and when embarking on the performance of an act for which an offer is open, at what point the offer may be withdrawn. In particular, Goff LJ observed that there would be a duty to not prevent full performance of terms in a unilateral offer, once performance had begun.

<i>Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc</i> 1957 American contract law case

Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc 86 NW 2d 689 is an American contract law case. It concerns the distinction between an offer and an invitation to offer. The case held that a clear, definite, explicit and non-negotiable advertisement constitutes an offer, acceptance of which creates a binding contract. Furthermore, it held that an advertisement which did not clarify the terms of its bargains, such as with fine print, could not then be modified with arbitrary house rules.

<i>Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC</i>

Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] EWCA Civ 13 is a leading English contract law case on the issue of offer and acceptance in relation to an invitation to tender. In it the Court of Appeal of England and Wales decided that tenders and requests for tenders are accompanied by a collateral contract implying that the requestor will give due consideration to any timely bid.

Barry v Davies [2000] EWCA Civ 235, [2000] 1 WLR 1962 is an English contract law case which established and confirmed that auction goods being sold without a reserve must be sold to a genuine highest bidder. The principle is subject to exceptions based on illegality, such as illicit goods, a seller without the right to sell the goods, or a buyer without the money or right to buy the goods.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Invitation to tender</span> Business process

An invitation to tender is a formal, structured procedure for generating competing offers from different potential suppliers or contractors looking to obtain an award of business activity in works, supply, or service contracts, often from companies who have been previously assessed for suitability by means of a supplier questionnaire (SQ) or pre-qualification questionnaire (PQQ).

<i>Gregory v Rangitikei</i>

Gregory v Rangitikei [1995] 2 NZLR 208, (1994) 6 TCLR 199 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the sale of property by tender, confirming that an offer inviting tenders to be submitted for the purchase of something did not amount to an offer capable of acceptance to sell that property, but instead merely amounted to an invitation to treat. It reinforces the English case of Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561. However the Court also ruled that there was a breach of the Fair Trading Act (1986).

References