Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Jake & Kate received a letter from a furniture trader on 1ST MAY.
    It says: "A new furniture is now for sale at $3000 (original price: $5,000). Pls reply on or before 6TH MAY. Our business hours are from 10-6pm. Order form is behind this letter."
    Jake completed the order form with a cheque & sent it our on 6TH MAY.
    The furniture trader got it on the 7TH MAY, she told Jake that he had to pay $5,000 because she got the order form after the said deadline.
    Kate called the furniture trader that she wanted to buy the new furniture at 11:30pm of 6TH MAY, the furniture trader didn't answer the call and left a voice message.
    The furniture trader heard the voice message on 7TH MAY. She told Kate that she had to pay $5,000 not $3,000.

    Advise whether Jake & Kate can ask the furniture trader to sell the new furniture to them at the price of $3,000.
    Will your answer be different if the completed order from Jake was never received by the furniture trader?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say that Partridge v Crittenden applies here. Can the furniture store be interpreted as having intended themselves to be bound however many people replied to their letter by filling in their order forms? The objective intent as much as in Partridge (and the case of the wine merchant, can't remember the name) must indicate an invitation to treat only. Even if they only sent a very small amount of letters round, recipients of the letters wouldn't know that.

    Though I'm suspicious of my own conclusion because that would render any discussion of the notification of acceptance cases irrelevant.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    (and the case of the wine merchant, can't remember the name)
    Grainger & Son v Gough
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    Grainger & Son v Gough
    That's the one :borat:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Invitation to Treat

    Because it's an advertisement and the relevant case is Partridge v Crittenden.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    TimmonaPortella's argument sounds right. But as they say, there's presumably a way to construct a plausible argument for offer, else the problem ends there.

    We don't know it's a public advertisement - we just know J and K received it. If it were sent to a select list of people who were interested in this, or maybe even just J and K, might it be construed as an offer (see Treitel, para 2-010, fn)? This might also get around the typical objection to adverts (Grainger) that it would create unlimited liability - using Chapelton, you might be able to argue the courts are happy for these to be offers where there is no way for them to exceed the number of items they can offer. I'm not sure Timmona's objection to this holds - the letter could have been phrased in a way that made it clear only a few people received it; in any case, are J and K held to have objectively interpreted it with Grainger in mind?

    Alternatively, could you use the fact there's a set time limit/date and order form to argue this is more like an offer? Can't think of any authority on it.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

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