Contract Law Seminar 5 Prep 1. What are the main elements in the formation and actualisation of a legally enforceable contract? Offer, acceptance, intent to create legal relations and consideration 2. What is the difference between an "offer" and an "invitation to treat"? An offer covers everything that needs to be present to make an enforceable contract, an invitation to treat is more open and requires more to make it an enforceable contract-looks like an offer but it's there to entice you in (gives some information but not all). Gibson v Manchester City Council Storer v Manchester City Council 3. What is the status of the following advertisements: a. £200 will be given to anybody who walks from Lincoln to London on December 1st 2019 .- offer b. For sale- a number of second-hand golf clubs. Contact J. Jones on 07955554694. - invitation to treat 4. Meg visits a self-service store and selects several articles which she places in the wire basket provided. She then changes her mind about some of these articles and starts to put them back on the shelf. The shop assistant sees Meg doing this and tells her that by picking the goods off the shelf she has purchased them and that she must now pay for them. Advise Meg. She had not entered into a contract by picking up the item off the shelf- is an invitation to treat until taken to the checkout. – Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists (1953) 5. Read in detail Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421: Facts The defendant advertised for sale a number of Bramblefinch cocks and hens, stating that the price was to be 25 shillings for each. Under the Protection of Birds Act 1954, it was unlawful to offer for sale any wild live bird. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) brought a prosecution against the defendant under the Act. At his trial, the defendant was found guilty of the offence by the magistrates; he appealed this conviction. Issue The issue on appeal was whether the advertisement was properly construed as an offer of sale (in which case the defendant was guilty) or an invitation to treat (in which case he had committed no offence). A further issue was whether it was appropriate to adopt a
different interpretation of the phrase 'offer for sale' in the context of criminal law than was accepted in the context of contract law. Held The court held that the advertisement was not an offer but an invitation to treat, and as such the defendant was not guilty. The court also rejected the suggestion that the court should adopt a stricter interpretation of the phrase 'offer for sale' in the criminal context compared to the contractual context, reasoning that to do so would usurp the legislative function. The legislature had chosen the phrase 'offer for sale' based on its existing understanding, and to alter this understanding under the pretext of 'interpretation' was