Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    Harvey V Facey Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    deepikagoswami3116

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Harvey V Facey Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    deepikagoswami3116
    8 views3 pages

    Original Title

    harvey v facey case brief

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    8 views3 pages

    Harvey V Facey Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    deepikagoswami3116

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    HARVEY V.

    FACEY ( BUMPER HALL PEN CASE ) - Difference bw


    offer and invitation

    Case Harvey v Facey

    Plaintiff Thomas Harvey

    Defendant Horace Facey

    Citation (1893) AC 552

    Delivered on 29th July 1893

    Court The Supreme Court Of Judicature Of


    Jamaica

    Bench The Lord Chancellor, Lord Watson, Lord


    Hobhouse, Lord Macnaghten, Lord
    Morris, Lord Shand. [Delivered By Lord
    Morris]

    FACTS

    ● Facey owned a property called Bumper Hall Pen in Kingston, Jamaica


    ● Dispute regarding - potential sale of property
    ○ Harvey (telegram) inquiring, - will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest
    cash price {telegraph 1}
    ○ Facey- lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen £900. {telegraph 2}
    ○ Harvey - we agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of £900 asked by you.
    {telegraph 3}
    ○ Facey- had sold Bumper Hall Pen to another purchaser in the meantime
    ● Harvey sued Facey- breach of contract

    QUESTIONS RAISED

    ● Was there an offer from Facey to Harvey to sell the land for 900?
    ○ No, there was not an explicit offer from Facey to Harvey to sell the land. A mere
    statement of the minimum selling price is only an invitation to offer not an offer.
    ● Was the telegram advising the lowest price an offer capable of acceptance?
    ○ No, the telegram was only an invitation to offer, not a valid offer because it only
    advised the lowest price of the land, and did not explain any other information.
    Though Harvey's telegraph accepting the 900 was instead an offer which Facey could
    either reject or accept, he then rejected so there was no contract created.

    PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENT
    Plaintiff claimed that his inquiry about the property and facey’s answer to the inquiry made a binding
    contract, showing willingness of facey to sell the property og Bumper Hall Pen

    DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT

    Defendant argued that the inquiry Facey’s response included only a price, without any explicit
    indication of his willingness to sell at that price.

    JUDGEMENT

    ● The Privy Council held that no binding contract existed between Harvey and Facey. Facey’s
    initial telegram stating the price was not an offer that could be accepted to form a contract.
    ● Instead, it was merely an invitation to offer.
    ● The court ruled that for a valid contract to exist, there must be a definite offer with the
    intention to be legally bound.
    ● Facey’s telegram did not constitute an offer according to contractual requirements. It was
    simply quoting a price in response to Harvey’s inquiry. This did not demonstrate an intent to
    enter into a binding agreement.
    ● Since Facey’s telegram was an invitation to offer rather than an offer, Harvey’s subsequent
    reply purporting to accept the price did not create a contract. There was no offer that could
    be accepted.
    ● Hence, the court found no contractual relationship existed between the parties in this case.

    ANALYSIS

    ● Offer vs. Invitation to Offer - An offer, when accepted, leads to a legally binding contract.
    However, an invitation to offer is merely a step in the negotiation process, inviting parties to
    make offers. The case demonstrates that not all responses, especially price inquiries,
    amount to offers. The mere dispensing of information, as seen in Facey’s reply, does not
    equate to an intention to sell and hence does not constitute an offer.

    ● Intent and Clarity in Communication - For a binding contract, there must be an unequivocal
    offer and an unambiguous acceptance of precisely the same terms in the same sense.

    RELEVANT SECTIONS

    INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872

    2(a) When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything,
    with a view to obtaining the assent of that either to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a
    proposal;

    2(b) When the person to whom the proposal is made, signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is
    said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise;
    Basic contract principle- An invitation to offer, also known as an invitation to treat, is a statement or
    action by one party that signals a willingness to enter into negotiations or discussions about a
    potential agreement, but is not a specific proposal or commitment to enter into an agreement.

    You might also like