8. ● Harvey, who was running the partnership company in Jamaica, he wanted to
buy the property owned by Facey who was also negotiating with the Mayor
and Council of the Kingdom of Kingston City for the same property.
● On October 6th, 1893 appellant sent a telegram regarding the purchase of
property to Mr. Facey who was travelling on the train on that day as he did not
want the property was sold to Kingston City.
● Telegram said “Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash
price-answer paid.” Mr. Facey replied “Lowest price for Bumper Hall
Pen£900.” In return, Mr. Harvey Replied “We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen
for the sum of nine hundred pounds asked by you. Please send us your title
deed in order that we may get early possession.”
● Then Mr. Facey changed his mind and refused to sell the land to Mr. Harvey,
on this basis Mr. Harvey sued him stating that there existed a contract
between them and said that the telegram was an offer and he accepted it.
10. Was there an explicit offer from Mr. Facey to Mr. Harvey
for the sale of the said property for the consideration of
£900 and is it capable of acceptance?
Was there a valid contract or not?
Was the telegram advising the lowest
price an offer capable of acceptance?
12. Section 7: Acceptance must be absolute.
In order to convert a proposal into a promise, the
acceptance must—
Acceptance must be communicated
It has to be absolute and unqualified
It must be in the prescribed mode
02
01 Section 2(b), ICA “When the person to whom
an offer is made (offeree) signifies his assent
thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted.
INDIAN CONTRACTS ACT (1872)
14. The honorable Judges Bench reviewed the total matter of this case and
upholding the Justice Curran’s verdict the Lordships held that the
Telegraph 1 asks the respondent his willingness to sell the land and what
is the lowest price of that land. But the respondent answered only the
second part, and his willingness to sell the property was absent in the
telegraph and therefore it cannot be expected to be binding upon him.
Here the Court asserted that through the telegraph 3 the reply from the
appellants cannot be considered an acceptance to the offer to sell them
the land. So the respondent acceptance cannot be granted as a valid
contract and actually no acceptance through any form was conveyed by
the respondent.
The Privy Council held that there was no contract concluded between the
parties. Facey had not directly answered the first question as to whether
they would sell and the lowest price stated was merely responding to a
request for information not an offer. There was thus no evidence of an
intention that the telegram sent by Facey was to be an offer.
16. A valid contract requires a proposal and an acceptance to it and to make
contract binding acceptance of the proposal must be notified to the proposer
because a legally enforceable agreement requires sureness to hold.
This case clearly explains the differentiation between invitation to offer and
offer and it also throws light explaining the nature of the offer as it plays a very
important role.
A valid and concluded contract requires a proposal and an acceptance of the
proposal. To make a contract binding it is necessary that the proposal must be
accepted and also the acceptance of the proposal must be notified to the
proposer.
A mere statement contains no implied acceptance to hold. This is because a
legally enforceable agreement requires certainty to hold. Here, in this case
invitation to offer is an abstract concept which was realized clearly and
expressly and this concept is improvising over the period of time.
Now, I must say that the principle of invitation to offer is clearly distinguishable
from an offer and it has played a crucial role in understanding the nature of an
offer.
18. This landmark case laid down the foundation of the concept
“invitation to offer”, where a person barely thinks about the notion of
accepting the offer or not.
Simply, we can say that when a person has not intimated his final
desire to accept an offer, it is an invitation to offer. This clearly
expresses that it is only a mere formal proclamation of information
on the terms on which the person may be willing to negotiate soon.
Lack of consensus ad idem between the two parties is the primary
reason for which this is not a complete offer.
There was no valid contract between both the parties because in
reply to the first telegraph the defendant answered only one of the
two questions : what is the lowest price of land and the answer was
900 pounds and it was only the reply of general information and only
the invitation to offer but not an offer.
