Gibson v Manchester city council (1979)

Council had adopted a scheme by which tenants of council houses could purchase their
homes. After local government elections the scheme was abandoned and it was agreed no
more council houses should be sold beyond those for which there was a binding contract.

Mr Gibson relied on a letter from Manchester Corporation to claim there was a firm offer to
sell and a letter from him to argue that this offer had been validly accepted.

Mr Gibson succeeded in the County Court and on Appeal to the Court of Appeal and specific
performance was awarded. However, the House of Lords unanimously allowed the appeal,
finding there was no offer from the Corporation capable of giving rise to a binding contract,
making particular reference to a passage in the letter that stated: 'The Corporation may be
prepared to sell the house to you'.

The House of Lords held that there was no concluded contract and the defendant was not
legally bound to sell the property, as the council’s letter did not state the price and was not an
offer but an invitation to treat.

Patridge v Crittenden (1968)

The fact of the case: This is another example in how an offer is distinct
from an invitation to treat in contract law. The facts of the case are quite
similar to the case of Fisher v Bell (1967).

Mr Partridge, the defendant, advertised in a magazine that he had

Bramblefinch cock and hens to sell. The price he quoted for each bird was
25 Shillings. The Bramblefinch was a protected bird category under the
the Protection of Birds Act 1954 and he was consequently charged with
offering to sale a protected bird species.

The conviction was quashed on the appeal and it was held that
advertisement to sell the bird was an invitation to treat and did not
constitute an offer

Harris v Nickerson (1893)

The defendant advertised that an auction of certain goods would take place at a stated time
and place. The plaintiff travelled to the auction only to find that items that he was interested
in had been withdrawn. He claimed compensation for breach of contract, arguing that the
advertisement constituted an offer, and his travelling to the auction, an acceptance by
conduct.

HELD

The advertisement was not an offer, merely a declaration of intention.

Fisher v bell (1961)

The fact of the case: The defendant, Mr Bell, who was a shopkeeper
and in his shop window he had displayed a flick knife priced at 4 shillings.
He was prosecuted for offering to sell a flick knife which was a criminal
offence under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.

The matter before the court was if the display of the knife was an offer of
sell or was just an invitation to treat.

At the first trial the defendant was acquitted of any wrong doing as the
court found for the defendant and stated that displaying a knife in the
shop window was merely an invitation to treat. The prosecution applied.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision and stated that
though at first glance it might seem that displaying a knife in the shop
window constituted an offer of sale, but legally such display was an
invitation to treat and never an offer.

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v

Boots Cash Chemists (1953)
The fact of the case: Two customers in Boots the chemist had picked up
some medicines from the self-service shelves that could only be sold
under the supervision of a pharmacist. Though the shop had a pharmacist
on duty and the transactions for such medicines were being supervised by
him at the till.

The issue before the court was whether the display of the medicines was
an offer, and by putting them in the wire basket was the acceptance by
the customer resulting in the formation of contract of sale. If this was the
case then Boots would be committing an offence by selling pharmacy
medicine without the supervision of a pharmacist under the then
Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933.

The Appeal court decided that the contract of sale was not made by
putting the controlled drugs in the wire basket, and the display of the
medicines on open shelves was rather an advertisement for sale, hence,
an invitation to treat. Placing the medicines in the basket constituted an
offer which was only accepted when the medicines were brought at the
payment till. As a pharmacist was present for supervising the transaction,
the chemist had committed no offence.
An example of case law for this principle is Payne v Cave (1789). Cave made the highest bid
in an auction to buy Payne’s good. By then, Cave withdrew it before the auctioneer made a
fall of the hammer. The court held that Cave has the right to withdraw his offer before the fall
of the hammer as the auctioneer’s request for bid is only an invitation to treat. Thus, there is
no contract formed between the two parties. This case law also includes the revocation of
acceptance. The revocation of acceptance is stated in Section 5(2) of the Contracts Act 1950
states that an acceptance may be revoke at any time before the communication of acceptance
is complete against the proposer, but not afterwards. Since the acceptance is not created by
the auctioneer by falling the hammer, Cave can revoke his offer.

Dickinson v Dodds
Facts

 The defendant offered to sell his house to the claimant, in an offer open until Friday
 On the Thursday, the defendant accepted an offer from third party
 The defendant asked a friend to tell the claimant that the offer had been revoked,
which was done
 The claimant attempted to accept the offer on the Friday

Issue

 Could the claimant seek specific performance; could an offer be revoked by another
person under instruction from the offeror

Decision

 Claim dismissed

Reasoning

 There was no consideration provided by the claimant for the defendant to keep the
offer open until Friday
 It was acceptable for a friend to revoke the offer on behalf of the defendant
 The offer could be revoked as it not been accepted

Leaf v international galleries

In March 1944, Leaf paid £85 for a painting from International Galleries which was
described in the contract as "One original oil painting Salisbury Cathedral by J. Constable".
Approximately five years later Leaf took the painting to Christie's to put it up for auction and
was informed that it was not a Constable. He returned the painting to International Galleries
and requested his money back. The gallery insisted that it was a Constable and refused to
give him back his money. Leaf brought an action for rescission claiming there was innocent
misrepresentation and that he paid money on reliance.

The claim based on misrepresentation was successful however, since it was an

innocent misrepresentation, the claimant had lost the right to rescind the contract
through lapse of time. With innocent misrep the time starts to run from the date of
the contract not the date of discovery.