Boots v Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (1
Boots altered one of their shops to 'self-service'. Under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act a registered pharmacist was required to be present at the sale of certain drugs and poisons. It was important to know when to contract was formed.
HELD: The Court of Appeal held that the contract was formed when the goods were presented at the cashdesk where a pharmacist was present, not when taken from the shelf.
Fisher v Bell (1961)
The defendant displayed a row of flick knives in the window. The plaintiff stated that the defendant was in breach of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 by offering to sell offensive weapons.
HELD: It was held that the knives were not being offered - it was an invitation to treat.
Partridge v Crittenden (1968)
The defendant advertised some birds for sale in a magazine. Action was brought against him claiming he was offering to sell birds in breach of the Protection of Birds Act.
HELD: It was held that the advert was not an offer but an invitation to treat.
Payne v Cave (1789)
The display of goods and the auctioneer's call for bids are an invitation to treat. The fall of the hammer is acceptance. Until the fall of the hammer, a bidder can withdraw a bid. This is revocation of an offer before acceptance. The offer is made by the bidder.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)
The defendant put an advert in the paper offering to pay £100 to anyone who caught the flu after using their smoke ball as directed for two weeks. The defendant put £1000 in the bank to show they were serious. The claimant used the smoke ball as directed and caught the flu so she claimed her £100. The company didn't want to pay so they argued no contract.
HELD: The Court of Appeal held that the advert did amount to an offer. It was an offer of a reward and the claimant had accepted when she bought and used the smoke ball. The £1000 deposit showed intention. This offer to the world is known as a unilateral contract.
Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Boroug
There was an invitation to submit tenders sent by a local authority to seven selected parties. The invitation stated that tenders submitted after a specific deadline would not be considered.
HELD: It was held that the authority was contractually bound to consider though not accept a tender submitted before the deadline.
Hyde v Wrench (1840)
An offer was made to sell a house at £1000, the buyer refused this but offered to pay £950 but this was rejected by the seller. The buyer then tried to insist to buy at £1000 but the seller decided not to sell to him.
HELD: It was held that the seller was not obliged to sell since in making the counter-offer of £950, the buyer had refused the offer and terminated it.
Stevenson v McLean (1880)
Following an offer to sell, the buyer sent a telegram asking whether credit terms would be available.
HELD: As this didn't change any existing terms but just asked for more information on the agreed price, it did not constitute a counter-offer but it was a mere enquiry.
Felthouse v Bindley (1862)
An uncle and nephew had negotiated over the sale of the nephew's horse. The uncle said: 'If I hear no more from you, I shall consider the horse mine.' There was then an auction of the nephew's stock and the auctioneer did not withdraw the horse from the sale. The uncle tried to sue the auctioneer but he could not prove that the horse was his. The nephew had not communicated his acceptance to the uncle.
HELD: Acceptance must be communicated. Silence does not amount to acceptance.
Adams v Lindsell (1818)
The defendants wrote offering to sell some wool to the plaintiffs, asking for a reply in the 'course of post.' The letter containing the offer was misdirected and late in arriving but when it did arrive, the plaintiffs posted an immediate acceptance back to the defendants. However, when the defendants hadn't received a reply in the expected time, the wool was sold to someone else and the plaintiffs sued.
HELD: It was held that a valid acceptance had been made when the plaintiffs posted their reply, leaving the defendants in breach of contract.