Offer and Invitation to Treat – Case Briefs

Goldthorpe v. Logan (no negative or positive treatment)

ON Court of Appeal, 1943

Facts: Defendants Logan (business owner) and Fitzpatrick (nurse) were supposed to remove
Plaintiff’s facial hair through electrolysis, advertisement stated “Results guaranteed”. It
didn’t work, P sued.
Issue: Was the advertisement an offer, which was accepted and thus binding?
Previous case law:
 Carlill v. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892): advertisements appeal to the
“credulous and weak portions of the community” and if the vendor promises that it is a
good product, he will “occasionally” be held to his promise.
Decision (Bull):
This was an offer, as would be understood by the public on its plain meaning – the offer
was made a second time when the plaintiff visited the business. An offer requires intent to
communicate it – the resolution alone, without any advice or discussions around it to
indicate to Blair that the intention was to carry it out, is not capable of acceptance, as it
doesn’t create a legal obligation.
Note: Blair’s lack of reliance on the resolution and the lack of evidence that she was
promised anything defeats any argument in equity.
Decision (Robertson):
Concurs with Bull, but adds Belfast case as support.

Thomas J. Locke, Sr., and Jan Vanderlinden v. Irving Oil Limited

Locke v. Irving Oil Ltd. (follows Blair)
NB Court of Queen’s Bench, Trial Division, 1994

Facts: Plaintiffs both retired before the end of 1991, and were not eligible for a special pension
plan for certain management positions. After their retirement, the company amended its
pension plan to include general members of management who worked throughout 1991.
Issue: Was the offer to management capable of being accepted by the defendants?
Previous case law:
 Grant v. New Brunswick (1973) stating from Williston on Contracts: the test of the true
interpretation of an offer or acceptance not what the party making it thought it meant or
intended it to mean, but what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have
thought it meant.
 Waddams’ The Law of Contracts: an enquiry or statement of intent is not an offer, and a
communication to one person is not an offer to another. Also, in the case of
misunderstanding, where the offeror has no reason to know about the offeree’s reasonable
expectation, the offeror is not held responsible (hasn’t promised what the plaintiff
understood).
Decision (Higgins J):
Offer addressed to eighteen management employees specifically, the plaintiffs knew this
and thus had no reasonable expectation of being included in the offer. A reasonable person
in their position would not have thought that an offer was being extended (see Blair).