Business Law An Introduction 商业知识分享.pptVIP

A mere statement of selling price in response to a request for information is not an offer. Harvey v Facey (1893) Facts: The defendant (F) was in negotiations with the regarding the sale of his store. The plaintiff (H) sent the defendant a telegram stating “will you sell us Bumper hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price-answer paid”. On the same day, F sent H a reply by telegram stating: “Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen ￡900”. H sent F another telegram agreeing to purchase the property at the asking price. F refused to sell and H sued for specific performance and an injunction to prevent the new buyer from taking the property. Case study * Held: The court held that by replying to H’s question regarding the lowest price of the property, F did not make an affirmative answer to the first question regarding his willingness to sell. The defendant’s response to the query was simply a statement of information. It was not an offer capable of being accepted by the claimant. * Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain V Boots Cash Chemists (1952) Facts: When Boots became a self service pharmacy problems arose because of the need for certain drugs to be sold under a pharmacists supervision according to the pharmacy and poisons Act 1933. If customers were serving themselves the question arose was the sale of goods unsupervised? Case study * Held: The court had to decide at what stage the contract was formed. The court held that goods placed on shop shelves constituted an invitation to treat, not an offer. The customer was offering to buy the medicine at the checkout at which point the assistant would accept the customers offer. There was always a pharmacist at the checkout. A binding contract of sale is made. * A question for you: Why is customer free to put back the goods which are not wanted?（为什么顾客可以自由的放回自己不想要的商品？） No contract until checkout is reached. Goods on shelf are invitations to treat not offer, so customer is free to put them back. * Rules of Offer and