Contract Law on Offer and Acceptance Case Study

Contract Law on Offer and Acceptance - Case Study Example Hence Brenda succeeds on the both the counts against Andrew. Tuesday Morning: Brenda replied by e mail that the price of 50 was a mistake instead of 500 and offered to Andrew the car at a discounted price of 450.and kept the offer open till 12.00 p.m on Friday. and Andrew replied that he would consider the new offer though expressing annoyance at Brenda's mistake. Brenda had corrected the price on the website before receipt of Andrew's offer. An offer is made when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or not to do a certain act with an intention that it shall be binding on the offeror if accepted by the person to whom the offer is made. The latter is called 'offeree"1 The offeror's signifiying act called expression of willingness may be by means of a letter, newspaper, websites, e mail and also by conduct by which an offeror may be genuinely offering or just displaying an act what is known as 'invitation to treat" As such goods advertised are only 'invitation to treat'. 2 They are of unilateral nature i.e. open to the whole world to accept such as offer for rewards etc. 3 In Partridge v Crittenden [1968], appellant Patridge had been convicted for sale of banned variety of bird punishable under Protection of Birds Act 1954 by inserting a classified advertisement in a journal without mentioning the words "offer for sale" In the appeal it was held to be an invitation to treat and not an offer for sale and co nviction was set aside. On the other hand in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893], an exception was made because the offeror meant business by depositing a certain sum of money as a reward for any one contracting influenza inspite of using medicine. So they could not escape liability stating their offer was an invitation to treat. Question arises website advertisements are offers or invitations to treat, relevant the instant case of Andrew v Brenda. .An offer is a set of conditions contemplating acceptance and capable of being accepted. "Thus in Thomson v James (1855) 18 D 1, Lord President MacNeill said, 'an offer is nothing until it is communicated' (at p.10). This is because an offer is not capable of acceptance until it has been communicated to the offeree" 4 "It is important to be able to differentiate between these invitations to treat and true offers, as acceptance of an offer creates a concluded contract whereas 'acceptance' of an invitation to treat is merely an offer. To assist in the identification of such invitations the law has developed presumptions as