Invitation To Treat In Akbar Case

1496 Words3 Pages

The following essay mentions the legal ramifications by reference of case laws of the decision of the defendant to sell his flat to a third party. This essay mentions the difference between offers and invitation to treats, whilst involving the significance of a counter offer. It also discusses the rules behind revocations and lagged method of communications. Advertisements are an offer or an invitation to treat. An offer is ‘a proposal of a set of terms by which the offeror is willing to be contractually bound’, (MacIntyre, 2015, p.475). Whilst an invitation to treat is an invitation for an offeree to make an offer, which would lead to negotiations and a contract if accepted. Whether an advertisement is an offer or an invitation to treat depends …show more content…

The court held the claimant had placed an invitation to treat. Therefore when Cave bided he had the right to withdraw his offer before the claimant accepts. As Cave withdrew his case before the auctioneer could accept it did not form a contract. Similarly, Charles can withdraw his offer any time before Dave accepts, as they are not in any contract. However he will need to inform Dave of his decision by giving a notice of revocation. Similarly, in Routledge v Grant [1828], the defendant offered to take a lease of the claimants’ property allowing the claimant 6 weeks to think. However within 3 weeks the defendant withdrew their offer. The Court held there was no contract as the defendant withdrew their offer before the claimant could accept. Likewise, although Charles has given until Friday for Dave to think, he can withdraw the offer any time before Dave’s …show more content…

An exception rule of acceptance for this is called the Postal Rule. The postal rule states when using a letter the communication is complete when the letter is posted and not when it is received. Dave posted his acceptance letter after the offer had been revoked, therefore this was not a valid acceptance. In the Adams v Lindsell [1818] case the defendant posted an offer to sell wool to the claimant, which was subsequently misdirected. Due to this the claimant replied with a letter of acceptance that was late. The court ruled this was a breach of contract as a contract was effective as soon as the claimant had posted his acceptance. In the case of Dave he had posted his letter after the offer had been revoked, therefore no contract had

Open Document