Talk:Invitation to treat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

[edit] Use of Invitation to treat vs. bargain

In furtherance of a discussion with User:BD2412, should this be called invitation to treat or invitation to bargain. It would appear the former is used in Australia and perhaps the UK, while the latter is used in the US... or is there something else distinguishing them? Enochlau 03:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

While I don't know US law well enough to know that invitation to bargain is exactly the same, a google search of the two terms seems to back your theory up (results from invitation to bargain are US and all for invitation to treat are UK). The fundamental common law of contracts did originate in the UK so I suggest we leave the title of the article the same but I'll note that the terminology is differen in the US. Psychobabble 23:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, what was meant by 'this page needs to be wikified'? I've added more wikilinks now, but does it really need headings? It seems too short. Psychobabble 23:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

This needs headings to distinguish between UK vs US vs Australian law (see 'Clarification needed' below)Nuance13x 06:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to confirm the term in the UK is 'invitation to treat'. 87.112.92.106 17:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification Needed

The cases, cited, are they US or British? Also, the 'invintation to treat' I believe is different in the US, because of UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), which holds that the display of an item (the good) is the 'offer', and the customer placing the item either in his shopping cart or in his hands when there is no cart, constitutes the acceptance. If a customer places the item back on a shelf, it operates as a revocation. From reading this article, and cases, it seems as though British common law as it applies to Britain, and Australia has a different rule (obviously they don't have the Americanism of the UCC). Since Wikipedia is 'global', it might be a good idea to distinguish between these different legal systems. Nuance13x 06:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and make this relevant for the US. Looking at the citations, all the cases are UK (AC, QB reports). I wrote this page and I'm Australian so I'm not qualified to comment on the US. Remember, Anyone can edit!! Psychobabble

I have a question: If A places an add in the Saturday paper, "Once in a lifetime opportunity: a four person tent as used in a recent jungle survival programme, First to see will buy. This will be sold to the first person who accepts it. Only $2000. Cash Only." I would consider this an invitation to treat right? then if J mails an acceptance letter but arrives on the Monday ~ this is an offer being made which A can refuse? P sees the ad and offers A a cheque, which A refuses, B asks A if he would keep the offer open until B can get to the bank to arrange a loan, A agrees. later that day C says that she will pay $3000 for the tent, A agrees to sell to C. on monday, J's letter, arrives, B returns to complete the purchase the tent and C calls and say that she have second thoughts. What is A's legal position?

Answer: From what I have learnt, if you place an advertisement, you are creating an invitation to treats, as you cannot make an offer to the 'world' as this would mean the 'world' would have to accept. Therefore from this interpretation even though the seller says "will be sold to the first person who accepts it" this cannot be true, as A is officially not making an offer, so noone can accept it. This means J's 'acceptance' doesnt exist(the only thing J can do is offer $2000)

"B asks A if he would keep the offer open until B can get to the bank to arrange a loan, A agrees" I am not sure if this consistuents this as the contract being made. This is becuase I have not enough information. Did any of them make an offer (ie. A offer to sell it to B directly or B offer to buy from A). If so what were the terms. The terms are the whole structure of a contract. From your information, it sounds that B has asked for A to keep the 'offer' open. This is not the case as the offer was never created, so there is nothing to keep open, therefore A can sell his tent to anyone he likes(as long as an offer has been created) Therefore from this it seems A is perfectly able to sell his tent C as she said she will pay $3000 for the tent, therefore she has created an offer, which A can decide to accept or refuse. And to accept would then make it a legally binging contract between A and C. C being the offeror and A being the offeree.

You can make an advert into an offer if you specify sufficent certainty in it, classically Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. Also I think relevant is the US case, Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores 86 NW 2d 689 (Minn 1957) though I've never read it. Cutler 14:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol, answering homework questions in wikipedia talk? Here goes, it's good practice anyway (p.s. the postal rule differs greatly between UK/Australia and the US, this looks like a UK/Australian question):

If a contract exists with any of the parties, they will be able to enforce it. A contract exists if there is an agreement supported by consideration, with the proper legal intention. Intention and consideration are prima facie not live issues. Agreement is normally characterised in terms of offer and acceptance, and we shall examine each position below.

Status of advertisement: Normally advertisements are invitation to treat, not an offer: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball. However this is not the case if the advertisement is in terms sufficiently certain and showing intention to be immediately bound (also Carlill). This would seem to be the case here. As it constitutes an offer, it is capable of acceptance.

J v A J has used the mail to accept the offer. The issue is if this constitutes a valid acceptance of the offer, completing the contract. Normally, acceptance has to be communicated to be effective (Byrne & Co v Van Tienhoven & Co;Entores v Miles Far East). However if, within the ordinary usages of mankind, the post is contemplated as a means of acceptance, then the contract is completed as soon as acceptance is posted (Henthorn v Fraser). However in this case this is definitely not the case. In particular the requirement of cash payment would be a big indicator that the postal acceptance rule would not apply, also that A intends to sell to the first person to comply.

P v A Does P's tendering of a cheque form a valid aceptance? No -- acceptance has to be unequivocal and in compliance with the terms of the offer: Carlill. As A has specified Cash only, P's offer of payment in a different kind constitutes a counter offer, able to be rejected by A.

B v A Does A's promise to keep the offer open while B seeks a loan constitute an enforceable agreement? This appears to be an option, which is unsupported by consideration, and therefore not a valid contract: Dickinson v Dodds. A is able to revoke the offer notwithstanding this promise.

C v A C's offer is in excess of A's original price, and therefore is not an acceptance according to the terms of the original offer. However C's offer is now a counter-offer, and capable of acceptance by A: Hyde v Wrench. As A has validly accepted C's counteroffer, there is a binding contract between A & C.

--Cliau 00:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)