Harvey v Facey (1893)
H sent a telegram to F, enquiring as to whether F would sell his property Bumper Hall Pen and, if so, what his lowest acceptable cash price would be. F responded only that the lowest price for the property would be £900. H tried to accept this and requested the title deeds. Held that there was no contract, judging the second telegram to be an invitation to treat at a price not lower than £900. Point of Law is an offer must be clearly distinguishable from a mere response to a request for information.
An offer must be firmly made - a request for information is not an offer:
Stevenson v McLean (1880)
Following the offer to sell iron which would remain open till the close of business on Monday. The buyers sent a telegram to the defendants enquiring about credit they received no reply and accepted the original offer by telegram sent at 1.34 pm. Meanwhile, the defendants had sold the iron to another party and had despatched notification of this to the plaintiffs at 1.25 pm; this reached them at 1.45 pm. The court decided that the first telegram sent by the plaintiffs was not a rejection of the offer but merely a request for further information; whether credit terms might be acceptable. No counter-offer had been made and the offer was still good at the time when the defendants sold the goods to the third party. It was ruled that the contract had been effected and was binding. Point of Law is the withdrawal of an offer is only effective once it has been communicated to the offeree.
An offer must be Communicated
· The offeree must know of the offer
R v Clarke (1927)
There was a £1000 reward for information leading to the conviction of murderers of 2 policemen and a free pardon to any accomplice. Clarke gave the information to receive the free pardon and admitted at the time had that the reward was not at the forefront of his mind. H e latter tried to claim the reward. Held if the oferee knew of the offer in the past but had completely forgot about it then treated as never knowing about it.
· Cross offers (i.e. offers which cross in the post do not form a conctract)
Tinn v Hoffman (1873)
There were negotiations as to the quantity and price of iron, letters crossed in the post. Obiter dicta suggest there would be no contract if letters cross in the post because there is no identifiable offer and acceptance. Cross-offers do not constitute acceptance.