D�ʤf�h�줣��J�ءI�I� -- ��W�p�E

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 03:52:03 04/26/02 Fri
Author: ��ڻ�O�Ӻ�D�H
Subject: D�ʤf�h�줣��J�ءI�I�

�z�I�I �y�`��I�I�I �y�`�� I�I�I �y�`�� I�I�I
�{�b�O�Ӻ��ܦ��r�I�I�H�H�H�H�H

D�ʤf�h�줣��J�ءI�I�I²��M�I�{ڻYMCA�O�Ӻ��J�H�I�I�I�I�I

�n�ߦ��ĤU�աI�I�I�L��U�ۤv�աI�I�I�I

�ۤv��ݦh�~�Ш|�I�I�I�I

�u�Y��Q�x�A Ū�ˤ��r�I�I�I�H�H�H
A contract is based on agreement, which arises from offer and acceptance. One person makes an offer; another person accepts that offer. When that has happened, and provided that the other necessary factors, consideration and intention to contract, are present, there is a contract.
Offer
An offer is a proposition put by one person(or persons) to another person (or persons) coupled with an indication that he is willing to be held to that proposition. The offeror(that is, the person who makes the offer) may make the offer to a particular person, or to group of persons or to 'the whole world'. The offer may be in writing, or spoken, or by conduct. Thus the offer may take any form between an elaborate document with numerous clauses and sub-clauses and an ordinary everyday act of conduct, such as a bus driver pulling up at a bus stop. The indication that the offeror is willing to be bound need not be stated in words(written or spoken); it may be, and frequently is, inferred from the nature of the offeror's proposition or from the circumstances in which the proposition is made.

It is necessary to distinguish a true offer from an 'offer to chaffer' ( as some of the old cases call it) or from an 'invitation to treat' (to use a more modern phrase). The importance of the distinction is that, if a true offer is made and accepted, the offeror is bound; on the other hand, if what the offeror said or did is not a true offer, the other person cannot create a contract by saying'I accept'; in other words, he cannot bind the offeror by saying'I accept'.The distinction is important, but it is not always easy to make it. For an example of this,see Gibson v.Manchester City Council (1979,H.L), a case involving council house sales.
Tenders
In connection with tenders the distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat is reasonably clear. If A asks a number of suppliers to put in tenders for supplying particular goods or services, he is not making an offer. This position is similar where A asks one supplier to put in an estimate for supplying particular goods or services. It is not A who makes the offer; the offer comes from the supplier in the form of the tender or estimate: see Spencer v. Harding (1870).
On the other hand, there may be cases where the person inviting tenders may bind himself to accept the highest bid. This is what happened in Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co. of Canada (CI) Ltd (1985, H.L). The Royal Trust Co. invited two parties to make sealed competitive bids for a block of shares; the parties were the plaintiffs and the second defendant, Sir Leonard Outerbridge. In their invitation, the Royal Trust Co. make the statement, 'we bind ourselves to accept the higher offer'. The plaintiffs made a bid of $2175000 ; the second defendant made a bid of '$2100000... or $101000 in excess of any other offer...expressed what is known as a 'referential bid'. The House of Lords held that this kinds of bid was invaild. They said that the purpose of a sale by fixed bidding was to provoke the best price which the prospective purchasers were prepared to pay regardless of what rival bidders were prepared to pay. It was inconsistent with this purpose to allow a referntial bid. See also Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v. Blackpool Borough Council(1990,C.A).

The rule that asking for tenders is not making of an offer accords with common sense. But common sense is not is not so clearly satisfied with the parallel rule that the displaying of goods for sale is not the making of an offer. Of course, it is convenience to have a definite rule one way or the other, but actual content of the rule seems somewhat arbitrary. The rule is, however, now firmly established. In Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists (Southern)Ltd(1953,C.A.),the Society brought an action against Boots alleging that boots were breaking the law laid down in the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 which requires the sale of any article containing any substance included in Part 1 of the Poisons List to be made under the supervision of a registered pharmacist. Boots had a self-service shop in Edgware. A customer went in and selected articles from the shelves, put them in a wire basket, went up to the cash-desk and paid for them. There was a registered pharmacist standing by the cash-desk but not by the shelves. If the sale took place when the customer picked up the article, then (subject to another point in the case) Boots were in Breach of the law; if the sale took place at the cash-desk, then they were not. The Court of Appeal held that the sale took place at the cash-desk. The display of articles on the shelves was not an offer, only an invitation to treat. The offer was made by the customer taking the article to the cash-desk. That offer could be, but need not be, accepted by Boots at the cash-desk. If it were so accepted the contract of sale would arise at that point, and so would be under the supervision of the registered pharmacist. The courts have taken the same view of goods displayed in a shop window. Indeed in Fisher v Bell(1961) Lord Parker considered the point to be beyond argument. He said:' It is perfectly clear that according to the ordinary law of contract the display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is merely an invitation to treat. It is in no sense an offer for sale, the acceptance of which constitutes a contract,' (the law is the same if the article is displayed without a price on it.)

The same rule applied to an advertisement by, for example, a trader stating that he is willing to sell some goods. The advertisement is not an offer, merely in invitation to treat. This point is well illustrated by Partridge v.Crittenden (1968). Mr Partridge was charged with unlawfully offering for sale a wild live bird(a brambling), contrary to section6(1) of the Protection of Birds Act 1954. He had put in a periodical called Cage and Aviary Birds an advertisement which read 'Bramblefinch cocks, bramblefinch hens, 25s. each'. A Mr Thompson, having seen the advertisement, wrote up for a hen and enclosed the money. Mr Partidge sent him a hen. On those facts he was charged. It was held by the Divisional Court that the advertisement was an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale, and that therefore the offence charged was not established. (He could

have been charged, under the same section, with selling, rather than offering for sale; in sale, he would presumably have been convicted.)
There are situations, however, where an advistment will be held to be an offer, not a mere invitation to treat. This is so, for example, where an advertisement offers a reward for the return of lost property. If the finder returns the property, knowing of the reward offer, he is entitled to the reward. It is not open to the owner to say:'I was not making an offer, I was only inviting offers.' Such a situation is sometimes described as a unilateral contract. This type of contract is a one-sided contract, in the sense that one party binds himself by a conditonal promise leaving the other party free to perform the condition or not, as he pleases. It is

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Forum timezone: GMT+7
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.