Does reducing price = new offer
Hi,
I have a situation where an item has been offered for sale at £10 and reduces everyday by a £1 until it is sold. I am wondering whether the daily price change constitutes a new offer everyday?
Cheers
I have a situation where an item has been offered for sale at £10 and reduces everyday by a £1 until it is sold. I am wondering whether the daily price change constitutes a new offer everyday?
Cheers
Depends on the context, particularly whether or not it is an offer or merely an invitation to treat.
However, assuming it is an offer the following needs to be considered.
There is an offer to sell at £1 which is open to the world. At midnight, the price is then reduced by £1. The original offer is thereby revoked (presumably) unless you are offering it for sale at £10 and £9 which would make no sense. You can revoke an offer at any moment before it is accepted, but you generally must communicate the revocation of an offer (Byrne v Van Tienhoven).
In the abstract this is quite a confusing question, so I could be wrong when considering it in the context of a problem.
However, assuming it is an offer the following needs to be considered.
There is an offer to sell at £1 which is open to the world. At midnight, the price is then reduced by £1. The original offer is thereby revoked (presumably) unless you are offering it for sale at £10 and £9 which would make no sense. You can revoke an offer at any moment before it is accepted, but you generally must communicate the revocation of an offer (Byrne v Van Tienhoven).
In the abstract this is quite a confusing question, so I could be wrong when considering it in the context of a problem.
Thank you for your response.
I agree it is confusing. The question has been set with the assumption that it is an offer and it appears difficult to argue. As you quite rightly speculated, the offer was revoked in the same channel as it was advertised Shuey v U.S. (1875) 92 US 73, and I have looking for way to argue breach.
I have Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co (1880) 5 C.P.D. 349, establishes that “a person who has accepted an offer not known to him to have been revoked, shall be in a position safely to act upon the footing that the offer and acceptance constitute a contract binding on both parties”
My current argument would be that the revocation notice was insufficient, Dickinson v Dodds (1876), given that Respondent issued the notice in a single issue of a newspaper the day before the Appellant accepted the offer by performance; advert specified to take payment to newspaper, which the Appellant did and was then notified the item was no longer for sale.
I was just looking for other angles when it occurred to me that the reducing daily price could imply an auction or tendering aspect to this.....???
I agree it is confusing. The question has been set with the assumption that it is an offer and it appears difficult to argue. As you quite rightly speculated, the offer was revoked in the same channel as it was advertised Shuey v U.S. (1875) 92 US 73, and I have looking for way to argue breach.
I have Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co (1880) 5 C.P.D. 349, establishes that “a person who has accepted an offer not known to him to have been revoked, shall be in a position safely to act upon the footing that the offer and acceptance constitute a contract binding on both parties”
My current argument would be that the revocation notice was insufficient, Dickinson v Dodds (1876), given that Respondent issued the notice in a single issue of a newspaper the day before the Appellant accepted the offer by performance; advert specified to take payment to newspaper, which the Appellant did and was then notified the item was no longer for sale.
I was just looking for other angles when it occurred to me that the reducing daily price could imply an auction or tendering aspect to this.....???
Original post by careofaddress
Thank you for your response.
I agree it is confusing. The question has been set with the assumption that it is an offer and it appears difficult to argue. As you quite rightly speculated, the offer was revoked in the same channel as it was advertised Shuey v U.S. (1875) 92 US 73, and I have looking for way to argue breach.
I have Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co (1880) 5 C.P.D. 349, establishes that “a person who has accepted an offer not known to him to have been revoked, shall be in a position safely to act upon the footing that the offer and acceptance constitute a contract binding on both parties”
My current argument would be that the revocation notice was insufficient, Dickinson v Dodds (1876), given that Respondent issued the notice in a single issue of a newspaper the day before the Appellant accepted the offer by performance; advert specified to take payment to newspaper, which the Appellant did and was then notified the item was no longer for sale.
I was just looking for other angles when it occurred to me that the reducing daily price could imply an auction or tendering aspect to this.....???
I agree it is confusing. The question has been set with the assumption that it is an offer and it appears difficult to argue. As you quite rightly speculated, the offer was revoked in the same channel as it was advertised Shuey v U.S. (1875) 92 US 73, and I have looking for way to argue breach.
I have Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co (1880) 5 C.P.D. 349, establishes that “a person who has accepted an offer not known to him to have been revoked, shall be in a position safely to act upon the footing that the offer and acceptance constitute a contract binding on both parties”
My current argument would be that the revocation notice was insufficient, Dickinson v Dodds (1876), given that Respondent issued the notice in a single issue of a newspaper the day before the Appellant accepted the offer by performance; advert specified to take payment to newspaper, which the Appellant did and was then notified the item was no longer for sale.
I was just looking for other angles when it occurred to me that the reducing daily price could imply an auction or tendering aspect to this.....???
I think you are along the right lines, if you want further help you need to post the actual problem here so I can take a look at it.
In relation to tendering / auctions, I disagree. A tender process / auction occurs when individuals submit bids, not when something changes price by itself. That is just a series of offers.
"I will sell you my bicycle today for £100, tomorrow for £101, and on any subsequent day for £100 plus the number of days that has elapsed". That is surely just one offer to sell, not one new offer per day.
"I will sell you 1000 barrels of oil for the current NASDAQ price plus $0.05 per barrel, any time you like between now and next Tuesday". Again this is just one offer, not a new offer every time the price changes by $0.01.
Why would there be a new offer? An offer must be sufficiently certain but both of the above satisfy that requirement.
"I will sell you 1000 barrels of oil for the current NASDAQ price plus $0.05 per barrel, any time you like between now and next Tuesday". Again this is just one offer, not a new offer every time the price changes by $0.01.
Why would there be a new offer? An offer must be sufficiently certain but both of the above satisfy that requirement.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Forum User
"I will sell you my bicycle today for £100, tomorrow for £101, and on any subsequent day for £100 plus the number of days that has elapsed". That is surely just one offer to sell, not one new offer per day.
"I will sell you 1000 barrels of oil for the current NASDAQ price plus $0.05 per barrel, any time you like between now and next Tuesday". Again this is just one offer, not a new offer every time the price changes by $0.01.
Why would there be a new offer? An offer must be sufficiently certain but both of the above satisfy that requirement.
"I will sell you 1000 barrels of oil for the current NASDAQ price plus $0.05 per barrel, any time you like between now and next Tuesday". Again this is just one offer, not a new offer every time the price changes by $0.01.
Why would there be a new offer? An offer must be sufficiently certain but both of the above satisfy that requirement.
Correct, that's why in my original statement I said it depends on the context and how the offer is framed. Either it is written in a question like that, or it is written as a series of offers. Both are plausible.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Economics a level
- MyTutor pricing changes
- cheap clothes online????
- Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 3 (9ECO 03) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Predictions for 2024 aqa alevel economics
- Selling A-Level Maths CloudLearn account discounted
- MoDesignss's New car Thread
- Post Your Economics Question Here
- I received a CCJ
- Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 1 (9ECO 01) - 18 May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Immerse education - is it legit or scam??
- Which Uni to reserve for MMath.
- Durham - Robes and Gowns
- Railway Mistake
- Looking for someone to takeover my tenancy
- Guaranteed University Managed Accommodation at Winchester - Clearing 2023
- Official University of Kent Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Market structures help
- Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
- How to Save Pennies When Going to University?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
