Partridge v. Crittenden
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Partridge v. Crittenden | |
| Divisional Court | |
| Date decided: | 5 April 1968 |
| Full case name: | Arthur Robert Partridge and Anthony Ian Crittenden |
| Citations: | [1968] 1 WLR 1204; [1968] 2 All ER 421;(1968) 132 JP 367; (1968) 112 SJ 582 |
| Judges sitting: | Lord Parker, CJ, Ashworth and Blain, JJ |
| Cases cited: | Fisher v. Bell, [1961] 1 QB 394; [1960] 3 WLR 919; [1960] 3 All ER 731; (1961) 125 JP 101; (1960) 104 SJ 981 (DC)
Grainger & Son v. Gough (Surveyor of Taxes), [1896] AC 325 (HL) Mella v. Monahan, [1961] Crim. LR 175 (DC) |
| Legislation cited: | Protection of Birds Act 1954 s. 6
Protection of Birds Act 1954 Sch. 4 |
| Case history | |
| Prior actions: | None |
| Subsequent actions: | None |
| Keywords | |
| Bird Conservation; Birds; Formation of contract; Offer and acceptance; Invitation to treat; Advertisement; | |
Partridge v. Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421, [1968] 1 WLR 1204, 132 JP 367 is an English 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 the Magistrates' Court and is well-known (amongst other cases) for establishing the legal precedent in English contract law, that usually advertisements are invitations to treat.
Contents |
[edit] Background
This case was a case stated by the Magistrates' Court sitting at the Castle in Chester on the 19th July 1967.
On the 13th April 1967 an advertisement by the appellant (Arthur Robert Partridge) appeared in the periodical "Cage and Aviary Birds", under the general heading "Classified Advertisements" which contained, amongst others, the words Quality British A.B.C.R... Bramblefinch cocks, Bramblefinch hens 25 s. each. In no place was there any direct use of the words "offer for sale". A Thomas Shaw Thompson wrote to Partridge asking him to send him an ABCR Bramblefinch hen (a brambling) and enclosed a cheque for 30s. On the 1st May 1967 Partridge dispatched a brambling, which was wearing a closed-ring around its leg, to Thompson in a box. Thompson received the box on 2nd May 1967 and was able to remove the ring from the bird's leg without injuring it.
Partridge was charged by Anthony Ian Crittenden, on behalf of the RSPCA, with illegally offering for sale a wild life bird which was not a close-ringed specimen, bred in captivity, against s. 6(1)* and Sch. 4* of the Protection of Birds Act 1954. The magistrates decided that the advertisement was an offer for sale and that the ABCR Bramblefinch hen was not a close-ringed specimen bred in captivity, because it was possible to remove the ring from the bird's leg.
Partridge was convicted, was fined £5 and ordered to pay £5 5 s. advocate's fee and £4 9 s. 6 d. witnesses' expenses.
Partridge appealed against conviction.
[edit] The Appeal
The legal question facing the High Court was whether the appellant's advertisement constituted a legitimate offer for sale, and whether the bird was not a close-ringed specimen bred in captivity under the Protection of Birds Act 1954 if it were possible to remove the ring from its leg.
It was held that the advertisement in question constituted in law an invitation to treat and not an offer to sell; therefore the offence with which the appellant was charged was not established. The judges also said that if the only issue were whether the bird was a close-ringed specimen under the Protection of Birds Act 1954, the magistrates' judgement would have been upheld.
[edit] Annex
From s. 6(1) of the Protection of Birds Act 1954: "If... any person sells, offers for sale... (a) any live wild bird... including in Sch. 4 to this Act of a species which is resident in or visits the British Isles in a wild state, other than a close-ringed specimen bred in captivity;... he shall be guilty of an offence..."
Sch. 4 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 has the heading: "Wild birds which may not be sold alive unless close-ringed and bred in captivity" and amongst the names in the schedule is "brambling".
