sas

477 views
415 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
477
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

sas

  1. 1. Invitation to treat (or invitation to bargain in the United States) is a contract law term. It comes fromthe Latin phrase invitatio ad offerendum and means an "inviting an offer". Or as Andy Burrows writes,an invitaton to treat is "an expression of willingness to negotiate. A person making an invitation to treat does not intend to be bound as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom the statement is addressed."[1]Contract lawyers distinguish this from a binding offer, which can be accepted to form a contract(subject to other conditions being met). The distinction between an offer and invitation to treat is bestunderstood through the categories that the courts create. Invitations to treat include the display ofgoods; the advertisement of a price or an auction; and an invitation for tenders (or competitive bids).There may however be statutory or complementary obligations, so consumer protection laws prohibitmisleading advertising and at auctions without reserve there is always a duty to sell to the highest bonafide bidder. But the general rule is that unlike an actual offer, an invitation to treat is not binding. The"inviter" can change his or her mind.Contents •[hide]1 Case law •2 See also •3 Notes •4 Reference s[edit] Case law Contract lawPart of the common law seriesContract formationOffer and acceptance · Mailbox ruleMirror image rule · Invitation to treatFirm offer · ConsiderationDefenses against formationLack of capacityDuress · Undue influenceIllusory promise · Statute of fraudsNon est factumContract interpretation
  2. 2. Parol evidence ruleContract of adhesionIntegration clauseContra proferentemExcuses for non-performanceMistake · MisrepresentationFrustration of purpose · ImpossibilityImpracticability · IllegalityUnclean hands · UnconscionabilityAccord and satisfactionRights of third partiesPrivity of contractAssignment · DelegationNovation · Third party beneficiaryBreach of contractAnticipatory repudiation · CoverExclusion clause · Efficient breachFundamental breachRemediesSpecific performanceLiquidated damagesPenal damages · RescissionQuasi-contractual obligationsPromissory estoppelQuantum meruitRelated areas of lawConflict of laws · Commercial lawOther common law areasTort law · Property lawWills, trusts and estatesCriminal law · Evidence v•d•eThe clearest example of an invitation to treat is a tender (or bidding in the U.S.) process. This wasillustrated in the case of Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561, where the defendants offered to sellby tender their stock and the court held that they had not undertaken to sell to the person who made thehighest tender, but were inviting offers which they could then accept or reject as they saw appropriate.In certain circumstances though, an invitation for tenders may be an offer. The clearest example of thiswas seen in Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] AC 207, where thedefendants had made it clear that they were going to accept the highest tender; the court held that thiswas an offer which was accepted by the person who made the highest tender and that the defendantswere in breach of contract by not doing so.An auction may be more ambiguous. Generally an auction may be seen as an invitation to treat, withthe property owner asking for offers of a certain amount and then selecting which to accept asillustrated in Payne v Cave (1789) 3 TR 148. However, if it is stated by the owner that there is noreserve price or that there is a reserve price beyond which offers will be accepted then the auction ismost likely a contractual offer which is accepted by the highest bidder; this was affirmed in theAppellate court in Barry v Davies [2000] 1 WLR 1962.Spencer v Harding
  3. 3. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Spencer v HardingCourt Court of Common PleasDate decided 29 June 1869Citations (1870) LR 5 CP 561Judges sitting Willes J, Keating J and Montague Smith JSpencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561 is an English contract law case concerning the requirements ofoffer and acceptance in the formation of a contract. The case established that an offer inviting tendersto be submitted for the purchase of stock did not amount to an offer capable of acceptance to sell thatstock, but rather amounted to an invitation to treat.Contents •[hide]1 Facts •2 Judgment •3 See also •4 Notes[edit] FactsThe Defendants sent out a circular containing the following wording:“ 28, King Street, Cheapside, May 17th, 1869. We are instructed to offer to the wholesale trade for sale by tender the stock in trade of Messrs. G. Eilbeck & Co., of No. 1, Milk Street, amounting as per stock-book to 2503l. 13s. 1d., and which will be sold at a discount in one lot. Payment to be made in cash. The stock may be viewed on the premises, No. 1, Milk Street, up to Thursday, the 20th instant, on which day, at 12 oclock at noon precisely, the tenders will be received and opened at our offices. Should you tender and not attend the sale, please address to us sealed and inclosed, Tender for Eilbecks stock. Stock-books may be had at our offices on Tuesday morning. Honey, Humphreys, & Co. ”The Defendants did not promise to sell the stock to the highest bidder for cash. The Claimants sent atender to the Defendants which, following the submission of all tenders, was the highest tender. TheDefendants refused to sell the stock to the Claimants.The Defendants submitted that the circular was not intended to be a binding offer capable ofacceptance. Rather, it was merely a circular inviting others to make offers. The Claimants submittedthat the circular did constitute a valid offer and that the Claimant had, by submitting the highest tenderand attending all the necessary meetings, accepted that offer.
  4. 4. [edit] JudgmentWilles J held that the circular was not an offer, but merely an invitation to gather tenders, upon whichthe Defendants were entitled to act. Willes, J. held that the absence of any specific wording such as"and we undertake to sell to the highest bidder" rebutted any presumption that the Defendants hadintended to be bound by a contract and distinguished the present circumstances from instances ofreward contract offers or an offer to the world.Keating J and Montague Smith J concurred.A shop owner displaying their goods for sale is generally making an invitation to treat(PharmaceuticalInvitation to treat (or invitation to bargain in the United States) is a contract lawterm. It comes from the Latin phrase invitatio ad offerendum and means an "inviting an offer". Or asAndy Burrows writes, an invitaton to treat is "an expression of willingness to negotiate. A person making an invitation to treat doSpencer v HardingFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Spencer v HardingCourt Court of Common PleasDate decided 29 June 1869Citations (1870) LR 5 CP 561Judges sitting Willes J, Keating J and Montague Smith JSpencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561 is an English contract law case concerning the requirements ofoffer and acceptance in the formation of a contract. The case established that an offer inviting tendersto be submitted for the purchase of stock did not amount to an offer capable of acceptance to sell thatstock, but rather amounted to an invitation to treat.Contents •[hide]1 Facts •2 Judgment •3 See also •4 Notes[edit] FactsThe Defendants sent out a circular containing the following wording:
  5. 5. “ 28, King Street, Cheapside, May 17th, 1869. We are instructed to offer to the wholesale trade for sale by tender the stock in trade of Messrs. G. Eilbeck & Co., of No. 1, Milk Street, amounting as per stock-book to 2503l. 13s. 1d., and which will be sold at a discount in one lot. Payment to be made in cash. The stock may be viewed on the premises, No. 1, Milk Street, up to Thursday, the 20th instant, on which day, at 12 oclock at noon precisely, the tenders will be received and opened at our offices. Should you tender and not attend the sale, please address to us sealed and inclosed, Tender for Eilbecks stock. Stock-books may be had at our offices on Tuesday morning. Honey, Humphreys, & Co. ”The Defendants did not promise to sell the stock to the highest bidder for cash. The Claimants sent atender to the Defendants which, following the submission of all tenders, was the highest tender. TheDefendants refused to sell the stock to the Claimants.The Defendants submitted that the circular was not intended to be a binding offer capable ofacceptance. Rather, it was merely a circular inviting others to make offers. The Claimants submittedthat the circular did constitute a valid offer and that the Claimant had, by submitting the highest tenderand attending all the necessary meetings, accepted that offer.[edit] JudgmentWilles J held that the circular was not an offer, but merely an invitation to gather tenders, upon whichthe Defendants were entitled to act. Willes, J. held that the absence of any specific wording such as"and we undertake to sell to the highest bidder" rebutted any presumption that the Defendants hadintended to be bound by a contract and distinguished the present circumstances from instances ofreward contract offers or an offer to the world.Keating J and Montague Smith J concurred. es not intend to be bound as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom the statement is addressed."[1]Spencer v HardingFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Spencer v HardingCourt Court of Common PleasDate decided 29 June 1869Citations (1870) LR 5 CP 561Judges sitting Willes J, Keating J and Montague Smith JSpencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561 is an English contract law case concerning the requirements ofoffer and acceptance in the formation of a contract. The case established that an offer inviting tendersto be submitted for the purchase of stock did not amount to an offer capable of acceptance to sell thatstock, but rather amounted to an invitation to treat.
  6. 6. Contents •[hide]1 Facts •2 Judgment •3 See also •4 Notes[edit] FactsThe Defendants sent out a circular containing the following wording:“ 28, King Street, Cheapside, May 17th, 1869. We are instructed to offer to the wholesale trade for sale by tender the stock in trade of Messrs. G. Eilbeck & Co., of No. 1, Milk Street, amounting as per stock-book to 2503l. 13s. 1d., and which will be sold at a discount in one lot. Payment to be made in cash. The stock may be viewed on the premises, No. 1, Milk Street, up to Thursday, the 20th instant, on which day, at 12 oclock at noon precisely, the tenders will be received and opened at our offices. Should you tender and not attend the sale, please address to us sealed and inclosed, Tender for Eilbecks stock. Stock-books may be had at our offices on Tuesday morning. Honey, Humphreys, & Co. ”The Defendants did not promise to sell the stock to the highest bidder for cash. The Claimants sent atender to the Defendants which, following the submission of all tenders, was the highest tender. TheDefendants refused to sell the stock to the Claimants.The Defendants submitted that the circular was not intended to be a binding offer capable ofacceptance. Rather, it was merely a circular inviting others to make offers. The Claimants submittedthat the circular did constitute a valid offer and that the Claimant had, by submitting the highest tenderand attending all the necessary meetings, accepted that offer.[edit] JudgmentWilles J held that the circular was not an offer, but merely an invitation to gather tenders, upon whichthe Defendants were entitled to act. Willes, J. held that the absence of any specific wording such as"and we undertake to sell to the highest bidder" rebutted any presumption that the Defendants hadintended to be bound by a contract and distinguished the present circumstances from instances ofreward contract offers or an offer to the world.Keating J and Montague Smith J concurred.Contract lawyers distinguish this from a binding offer, which can be accepted to form a contract(subject to other conditions being met). The distinction between an offer and invitation to treat is bestunderstood through the categories that the courts create. Invitations to treat include the display ofgoods; the advertisement of a price or an auction; and an invitation for tenders (or competitivebids).Spencer v Harding
  7. 7. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Spencer v HardingCourt Court of Common PleasDate decided 29 June 1869Citations (1870) LR 5 CP 561Judges sitting Willes J, Keating J and Montague Smith JSpencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561 is an English contract law case concerning the requirements ofoffer and acceptance in the formation of a contract. The case established that an offer inviting tendersto be submitted for the purchase of stock did not amount to an offer capable of acceptance to sell thatstock, but rather amounted to an invitation to treat.Contents •[hide]1 Facts •2 Judgment •3 See also •4 Notes[edit] FactsThe Defendants sent out a circular containing the following wording:“ 28, King Street, Cheapside, May 17th, 1869. We are instructed to offer to the wholesale trade for sale by tender the stock in trade of Messrs. G. Eilbeck & Co., of No. 1, Milk Street, amounting as per stock-book to 2503l. 13s. 1d., and which will be sold at a discount in one lot. Payment to be made in cash. The stock may be viewed on the premises, No. 1, Milk Street, up to Thursday, the 20th instant, on which day, at 12 oclock at noon precisely, the tenders will be received and opened at our offices. Should you tender and not attend the sale, please address to us sealed and inclosed, Tender for Eilbecks stock. Stock-books may be had at our offices on Tuesday morning. Honey, Humphreys, & Co. ”The Defendants did not promise to sell the stock to the highest bidder for cash. The Claimants sent atender to the Defendants which, following the submission of all tenders, was the highest tender. TheDefendants refused to sell the stock to the Claimants.The Defendants submitted that the circular was not intended to be a binding offer capable ofacceptance. Rather, it was merely a circular inviting others to make offers. The Claimants submittedthat the circular did constitute a valid offer and that the Claimant had, by submitting the highest tenderand attending all the necessary meetings, accepted that offer.
  8. 8. [edit] JudgmentWilles J held that the circular was not an offer, but merely an invitation to gather tenders, upon whichthe Defendants were entitled to act. Willes, J. held that the absence of any specific wording such as"and we undertake to sell to the highest bidder" rebutted any presumption that the Defendants hadintended to be bound by a contract and distinguished the present circumstances from instances ofreward contract offers or an offer to the world.Keating J and Montague Smith J concurred. There may however be statutory or complementary obligations, so consumer protection laws prohibitmisleading advertising and at auctions without reserve there is always a duty to sell to the highest bonafide bidder. But the general rule is that unlike an actual offer, an invitation to treat is not binding. The"inviter" can change his or her mind.Spencer v HardingFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Spencer v HardingCourt Court of Common PleasDate decided 29 June 1869Citations (1870) LR 5 CP 561Judges sitting Willes J, Keating J and Montague Smith JSpencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561 is an English contract law case concerning the requirements ofoffer and acceptance in the formation of a contract. The case established that an offer inviting tendersto be submitted for the purchase of stock did not amount to an offer capable of acceptance to sell thatstock, but rather amounted to an invitation to treat. Contents •[hide]1 Facts •2 Judgment •3 See also •4 Notes[edit] FactsThe Defendants sent out a circular containing the following wording: “ 28, King Street, Cheapside, May 17th, 1869. We are instructed to offer to the wholesale trade for ” sale by tender the stock in trade of Messrs. G. Eilbeck & Co., of No. 1, Milk Street, amounting as per stock-book to 2503l. 13s. 1d., and which will be sold at a discount in one lot. Payment to be
  9. 9. made in cash. The stock may be viewed on the premises, No. 1, Milk Street, up to Thursday, the 20th instant, on which day, at 12 oclock at noon precisely, the tenders will be received and opened at our offices. Should you tender and not attend the sale, please address to us sealed and inclosed, Tender for Eilbecks stock. Stock-books may be had at our offices on Tuesday morning. Honey, Humphreys, & Co.The Defendants did not promise to sell the stock to the highest bidder for cash. The Claimants sent atender to the Defendants which, following the submission of all tenders, was the highest tender. TheDefendants refused to sell the stock to the Claimants.The Defendants submitted that the circular was not intended to be a binding offer capable ofacceptance. Rather, it was merely a circular inviting others to make offers. The Claimants submittedthat the circular did constitute a valid offer and that the Claimant had, by submitting the highest tenderand attending all the necessary meetings, accepted that offer.[edit] JudgmentWilles J held that the circular was not an offer, but merely an invitation to gather tenders, upon whichthe Defendants were entitled to act. Willes, J. held that the absence of any specific wording such as"and we undertake to sell to the highest bidder" rebutted any presumption that the Defendants hadintended to be bound by a contract and distinguished the present circumstances from instances ofreward contract offers or an offer to the world.Keating J and Montague Smith J concurred.Contents •[hide]1 Case law •2 See also •3 Notes •4 Reference s[edit] Case law Contract lawPart of the common law seriesContract formationOffer and acceptance · Mailbox rule
  10. 10. Mirror image rule · Invitation to treatFirm offer · ConsiderationDefenses against formationLack of capacityDuress · Undue influenceIllusory promise · Statute of fraudsNon est factumContract interpretationParol evidence ruleContract of adhesionIntegration clauseContra proferentemExcuses for non-performanceMistake · MisrepresentationFrustration of purpose · ImpossibilityImpracticability · IllegalityUnclean hands · UnconscionabilityAccord and satisfactionRights of third partiesPrivity of contractAssignment · DelegationNovation · Third party beneficiaryBreach of contractAnticipatory repudiation · CoverExclusion clause · Efficient breachFundamental breachRemediesSpecific performanceLiquidated damagesPenal damages · RescissionQuasi-contractual obligationsPromissory estoppelQuantum meruitRelated areas of lawConflict of laws · Commercial lawOther common law areasTort law · Property lawWills, trusts and estatesCriminal law · Evidence v•d•eThe clearest example of an invitation to treat is a tender (or bidding in the U.S.) process. This wasillustrated in the case of Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561, where the defendants offered to sellby tender their stock and the court held that they had not undertaken to sell to the person who made thehighest tender, but were inviting offers which they could then accept or reject as they saw appropriate.In certain circumstances though, an invitation for tenders may be an offer. The clearest example of thiswas seen in Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] AC 207, where thedefendants had made it clear that they were going to accept the highest tender; the court held that thiswas an offer which was accepted by the person who made the highest tender and that the defendantswere in breach of contract by not doing so.
  11. 11. An auction may be more ambiguous. Generally an auction may be seen as an invitation to treat, withthe property owner asking for offers of a certain amount and then selecting which to accept asillustrated in Payne v Cave (1789) 3 TR 148. However, if it is stated by the owner that there is noreserve price or that there is a reserve price beyond which offers will be accepted then the auction ismost likely a contractual offer which is accepted by the highest bidder; this was affirmed in theAppellate court in Barry v Davies [2000] 1 WLR 1962.A shop owner displaying their goods for sale is generally making an invitation to treat (PharmaceuticalSociety of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401). They are not obligedto sell the goods to anyone who is willing to pay for them, even if additional signage such as "specialoffer" accompanies the display of the goods. (But see bait and switch.) This distinction was legallyrelevant in Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, where it was held that displaying a flicknife for sale in ashop did not contravene legislation which prohibited offering for sale such a weapon. The distinctionalso means that if a shop mistakenly displays an item for sale at a very low price it is not obliged to sellit for that amount [1].Generally, advertisements are invitations to treat, so the person advertising is not compelled to sell toevery customer. In Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204, it was held that where the appellantadvertised to sell wild birds, was not offering to sell them. Lord Parker CJ commented that it did notmake "business sense" for advertisements to be offers, as the person making the advertisement mayfind himself in a situation where he would be contractually obliged to sell more goods than he actuallyowned. In certain circumstances however, an advertisement can be an offer, a well known examplebeing the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256, where it was held that thedefendants, who advertised that they would pay anyone who used their product in the prescribedmanner and caught influenza £100 and said that they had deposited £1,000 in the bank to show theirgood faith, has made an offer to the whole world and were contractually obliged to pay £100 towhoever accepted it by performing the requested acts.[edit] Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401). They are notobliged to sell the goods to anyone who is willing to pay for them, even if additional signage such as"special offer" accompanies the display of the goods. (But see bait and switch.) This distinction waslegally relevant in Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, where it was held that displaying a flicknife for salein a shop did not contravene legislation which prohibited offering for sale such a weapon. Thedistinction also means that if a shop mistakenly displays an item for sale at a very low price it is notobliged to sell it for that amount [1].Generally, advertisements are invitations to treat, so the person advertising is not compelled to sell toevery customer. In Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204, it was held that where the appellantadvertised to sell wild birds, was not offering to sell them. Lord Parker CJ commented that it did notmake "business sense" for advertisements to be offers, as the person making the advertisement mayfind himself in a situation where he would be contractually obliged to sell more goods than he actuallyowned. In certain circumstances however, an advertisement can be an offer, a well known examplebeing the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256, where it was held that thedefendants, who advertised that they would pay anyone who used their product in the prescribedmanner and caught influenza £100 and said that they had deposited £1,000 in the bank to show theirgood faith, has made an offer to the whole world and were contractually obliged to pay £100 towhoever accepted it by performing the requested acts.
  12. 12. [edit]Spencer v HardingFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Spencer v HardingCourt Court of Common PleasDate decided 29 June 1869Citations (1870) LR 5 CP 561Judges sitting Willes J, Keating J and Montague Smith JSpencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561 is an English contract law case concerning the requirements ofoffer and acceptance in the formation of a contract. The case established that an offer inviting tendersto be submitted for the purchase of stock did not amount to an offer capable of acceptance to sell thatstock, but rather amounted to an invitation to treat.Contents •[hide]1 Facts •2 Judgment •3 See also •4 Notes[edit] FactsThe Defendants sent out a circular containing the following wording:“ 28, King Street, Cheapside, May 17th, 1869. We are instructed to offer to the wholesale trade for sale by tender the stock in trade of Messrs. G. Eilbeck & Co., of No. 1, Milk Street, amounting as per stock-book to 2503l. 13s. 1d., and which will be sold at a discount in one lot. Payment to be made in cash. The stock may be viewed on the premises, No. 1, Milk Street, up to Thursday, the 20th instant, on which day, at 12 oclock at noon precisely, the tenders will be received and opened at our offices. Should you tender and not attend the sale, please address to us sealed and inclosed, Tender for Eilbecks stock. Stock-books may be had at our offices on Tuesday morning. Honey, Humphreys, & Co. ”The Defendants did not promise to sell the stock to the highest bidder for cash. The Claimants sent atender to the Defendants which, following the submission of all tenders, was the highest tender. TheDefendants refused to sell the stock to the Claimants.
  13. 13. The Defendants submitted that the circular was not intended to be a binding offer capable ofacceptance. Rather, it was merely a circular inviting others to make offers. The Claimants submittedthat the circular did constitute a valid offer and that the Claimant had, by submitting the highest tenderand attending all the necessary meetings, accepted that offer.[edit] JudgmentWilles J held that the circular was not an offer, but merely an invitation to gather tenders, upon whichthe Defendants were entitled to act. Willes, J. held that the absence of any specific wording such as"and we undertake to sell to the highest bidder" rebutted any presumption that the Defendants hadintended to be bound by a contract and distinguished the present circumstances from instances ofreward contract offers or an offer to the world.Keating J and Montague Smith J concurred.

×