Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey! Sign in to get help with your study questionsNew here? Join for free to post

‘Distinguish between an offer and an invitation to treat.

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    ‘Distinguish between an offer and an invitation to treat. Give examples to illustrate the distinction’

    Hi, I was just wondering If anyone could give me some good ideas I could use for this essay, such as resources, certain cases and certain points to pick up on. My understanding of law is somewhat limited

    I have looked through a good majority of threads on this board but couldn't find any similar. So if there is any a link to that would be great

    Any help would be most appreciated

    Thanks.

    Chris
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The Distinction Between An Offer And An Invitation To Treat Is Often Hard To Draw As It Depends On The Elusive Criterion Of Intention. But There Are Certain Stereotyped Situations That The Distinction Is Determined By Rules Of Law" Introduction An offer is made when a person shows a willingness to enter into a legally binding contract. An invitation to treat (I.T.T) is merely a supply of information to tempt a person into making an offer. However the distinction between the two can often be misleading and ultimately misinterpreted. When misinterpretations and complications occur then it is down to the courts to decide and to distinguish between the two terms, so a person is not led into a binding contract of which he does not want to be a part of, (Harvey V Facey [1893] A.C 552.) but is merely supplying information to which an offer is to be made. Offers and Invitations...

    ----------------

    An invitation to treat is an action inviting other parties to make an offer to form a contract. These actions may sometimes appear to be offers themselves, and the difference can sometimes be difficult to determine. The distinction is important because accepting an offer creates a binding contract while "accepting" an invitation to treat is actually making an offer.

    Advertisements are usually invitations to treat, which allows sellers to refuse to sell products at prices mistakenly marked. Advertisements can also be considered offers in some specific cases. Auctions are sometimes invitations to treat which allows the seller to accept bids and choose which to accept. However, if the seller states that there is no reserve price or the reserve price has been met, the auction will be considered an offer accepted by the highest bidder.


    hope this helps ! not much use i'm sure just bits and bobs i've acquired
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Thanks for your help, appreciated.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    no worries, tbh just google it :P i'm sure there's lots of info on the world wide web
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 18Chris88)
    ‘Distinguish between an offer and an invitation to treat. Give examples to illustrate the distinction’
    The main cases:
    Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
    Fisher v Bell
    Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists

    Basically, an ITT is advertisement (made by the seller) and the offer is when the customer approaches the seller with an offer to buy.

    So in an everyday example...you walk into a shop and see an item for £9.99 (this would be an ITT), you then take it to the counter and prepare to pay £9.99 (the offer). The important concept here is that an ITT is not binding i.e. when you go to the counter and the clerk says "oh sorry this item is actually £29.99", you have no defence in demanding to be sold it for £9.99.

    This is also called the 'Counter Offer' in which you can either accept or decline...or counter offer yourself...but you see the point.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Can a "counter offer" be made on an invitation to treat? Or would it be known as something different? I.e. a book is for sale for 9.99, customer asks to pay 5.99 for book. Is this known as a counter offer? Or can that term only be used for offers?

    Tracy
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TT08)
    Can a "counter offer" be made on an invitation to treat? Or would it be known as something different? I.e. a book is for sale for 9.99, customer asks to pay 5.99 for book. Is this known as a counter offer? Or can that term only be used for offers?

    Tracy
    An invitation to treat is an 'offer' but from the offeree.
    A counter offer is when the you make an offer to the shop-owner makes and he/she alters, modifies a term or terms.
    I.e. you make an offer - which is 5.99. He would reject the offer and make a counter-offer.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TT08)
    Can a "counter offer" be made on an invitation to treat? Or would it be known as something different? I.e. a book is for sale for 9.99, customer asks to pay 5.99 for book. Is this known as a counter offer? Or can that term only be used for offers?

    Tracy
    For a counter offer to occur there first needs to be an offer and as an ITT is not an offer, you can't make a counter offer to it
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    you can't write about itt without mentioning carlill v carbolic smoke ball company! also lord hysteria has it dead on;

    offeror > offeree = itt (in the form of advertisement, see above case law!)

    offeree > offeror = offer
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by law:portal)
    The main cases:
    Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
    Fisher v Bell
    Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists

    Basically, an ITT is advertisement (made by the seller) and the offer is when the customer approaches the seller with an offer to buy.

    So in an everyday example...you walk into a shop and see an item for £9.99 (this would be an ITT), you then take it to the counter and prepare to pay £9.99 (the offer). The important concept here is that an ITT is not binding i.e. when you go to the counter and the clerk says "oh sorry this item is actually £29.99", you have no defence in demanding to be sold it for £9.99.

    This is also called the 'Counter Offer' in which you can either accept or decline...or counter offer yourself...but you see the point.
    carlill v carbolic smoke ball co- is used as authority for a valid offer
    the reasons-
    -the ad was not at all vague .
    - they had proved their sincerity in the offer by depositing money in their bank account
    -it was a unilateral offer and valid acceptance was performance of the requested act
    - consideration was performance of the act.( all binding offers must include consideration eg the offeree must provide something in return for the offer)

    invitation to treat on the other hand is not a valid offer and therefor not binding in contract
    pharmacutical society of GB v boots cash chemist
    fisher v bell
    partridge v crittenden
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I know what the case is.

    As in the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company case an advert was deemed to be an offer it should always be refferred to when discussing such matters of whether something is an offer or an ITT hence making it such an authority.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I would argue that there is NO meaningful distinction between the two. It's all public policy.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TT08)
    Can a "counter offer" be made on an invitation to treat? Or would it be known as something different? I.e. a book is for sale for 9.99, customer asks to pay 5.99 for book. Is this known as a counter offer? Or can that term only be used for offers?

    Tracy
    Yep this is a counter offer and it cancells out the original offer too
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrisateen)
    Yep this is a counter offer and it cancells out the original offer too
    No, it's an offer.

    A counter offer can only follow from an original offer. (i.e. you cannot make a counter offer unless there is an offer to begin with).

    Displaying the book for sale in the shop = an invitation to treat (Fisher v Bell, Boots Cash Chemists etc).

    For info on counter offers see Hyde v Wrench.

    Hope this helps.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    p.s. love the plato and socrates cartoon
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damn, I was going for thoughtful.)
    No, it's an offer.

    A counter offer can only follow from an original offer. (i.e. you cannot make a counter offer unless there is an offer to begin with).

    Displaying the book for sale in the shop = an invitation to treat (Fisher v Bell, Boots Cash Chemists etc).

    For info on counter offers see Hyde v Wrench.

    Hope this helps.
    oops yeah your right read the post wrong

    Glad you like the cartoon as when I saw it I just had to add it on to my sig
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Right I think I understand what the differences are but I am a little confused with adverts as many places it says there are expections all to do this whether it is vauge or not. I have the following question

    Question in brief
    The bank of Calendonia has an advertisement & posters up in the branch inviting students to open a bank account before the end of October and receive a new mp3 player.
    Adrian goes to open an account on 30/09 and does not receive mp3 player. He is told that there is none left in stock and that he won’t receive one.

    What is Adrian’s legal position?

    would this be an invitation to treat or an offer? I dont know
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    hi,,


    I have a question for you - is the following scenario an Offer or an Invitation to Treat ??


    On Channel 4's program The Morning Line on Saturday 15 September 2012 Ladbroke spokesman David Williams gave details of a 'promotion of the century'.



    What he said was "bet up to £20 on Camelot to win the St Leger today - and if he loses 'we'll give you your money back.'



    His went on "we want everybody - all morning line viewers to participate... it is the greatest most historic no lose bet...back Camelot at 2/5 ...if he loses we are giving your money back for (up to) £20 for every single punter..you don't even have to think about it theres no reason not to back Camelot..that is what we're doing"



    Chanel 4 posted up a headline whilst he was speaking : it read ‘money back if Camelot loses’.



    Channel 4s presenter- Tanya Stephenson- commented on- indeed endorsed - the offer by saying, and I quote, ‘ phenomenal’.


    Too good to be true ??



    It certainly appears so !!



    The offer was not as stated, and Ladbrokes are not giving any money back.



    They are instead giving a FREE bet, which if it wins WILL NOT return your stake money - if it loses you will get nothing back.


    So this does not agree with the statement "We will give you your money back".



    In fact if the FREE bet loses you will get noting back at all.



    Ladbrokes are hiding behind their Terms and Conditions, which were certainly not mentioned in their sales pitch.



    I remember some of my Law classes and to me this looks like a Breach of Contract law - an offer/invtation to treat was made, no conditions were mentioned - the offer was accepted by customers ringing Ladbrokes to place bets.



    Ladbrokes cannot now start introducing Terms and Conditions after the contract has been made imo.



    I would imagine there are hundreds if not thousands of unhappy punters out there that feel they are the victim of some underhand tactics by Ladbrokes.


    Do we have Class Action Suits in this country ??


    £20 may not be a fortune, but if 5 or 10,000 people accepted the offer the amount soon mounts up.


    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    re: Ladbrokes failing to honour its Special Offer on Camelot bet.

    Gambling Debts CANNOT BE ENFORCED - so they can say what they want !!
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sean99)
    re: Ladbrokes failing to honour its Special Offer on Camelot bet.

    Gambling Debts CANNOT BE ENFORCED - so they can say what they want !!
    Following s.335 Gambling Act 2005, gambling contracts are enforceable.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: November 3, 2013
New on TSR

Personal statement help

Use our clever tool to create a PS you're proud of.

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.