Is the Advertisement an Invitation to Treat or an Offer?

367 Words2 Pages
The first issue is whether the advertisement constitutes an offer or an invitation to treat. An offer can be defined as statement of the terms on which an offeror agrees to be bound, whereas an invitation to treat lacks any contractual significance. Does the advertisement demonstrate a clear willingness to be bound without any need or desire to prolong negotiations? On the one hand, it may constitute an invitation to treat because the price stated, implied that it invited different bids as it said "or nearest offer". It is unlikely that a buyer would come forward without an internal inspection of the camera and in general, an advertisement is normally considered to be a means of generating interest rather than a final stage before a contract is concluded. Partridge v Crittenden (1968) is an example of where an advertisement was held to be an invitation to treat. Here, the advertisement said "Bramble finches, 25shillings each" and the appellant who placed the advert was not guilty of the statutory offence of "offering for sale" a wild bird. Conversely, the advertisement may constitute an offer because it states a definite upper limit, it says who the camera would be suitable for, the camera is subject to an external inspection and there is also a prescribed method of communication. This latter point allows Arnold to vet each acceptance personally and when a buyer has been found, he could place a notice of retraction in the magazine before any further acceptances are received. In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball (1893), an advertisement was held to be an offer because the clarity of its wording, linked with an intention to be bound as evidenced by the deposit of money with the bank demonstrated the required degree of intent and specificity. Similarly, it is plausible to say that the words " £300 or nearest offer" imply that the price will not exceed £300, hence

More about Is the Advertisement an Invitation to Treat or an Offer?

Open Document