Contract Law: Offer, Invitation to Treat, Revocation, Acceptance, Postal Rule

This article discusses the various aspects of contract law, including offer, invitation to treat, revocation, acceptance, and the postal rule. It provides examples and case studies to illustrate these concepts.

CONTRACT LAW

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
CONTRACT LAW .........................................................................................................................3
ISSUE..........................................................................................................................................3
RULE..........................................................................................................................................3
APPLICATION..........................................................................................................................7
CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................8
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................9

INTRODUCTION
In context of UK, the contract law related to the rules of the law which legally imposed
upon the person to follow all the rules and regulation applied in the contract. As contract is the
part of the agreement and thus the term mentioned in the agreement are necessary to be fulfilled
by the person. To form the contract, the person must carry all the essential elements mentioned in
the contract such as their must be offer and acceptance between the person, the promise is to be
ascertained in respect of accepting such offer or making any offer. The parties must be capable to
grip the contract and if person agreed to enter into the contract, they must be legally bound by
the government norms to fulfilled it in right manner. The contract can be made by the person
itself or by appointing the agent to work on their behalf. In this report, the case is between the
Andrew and its customer deal and the issues is relating to server issues through which Andrew
not convey the information within the stipulated time period.
CONTRACT LAW
ISSUE
In this present scenario, the issues is examined relating to not server problem as Andrew
the computer dealer issues the circulation regarding offering the computer at price £4000 which
includes the delivery and installation charges. In addition to that letter, it also stated that the
special prices is set for the customer if they book the computers before the end of January. After
examining that the special prices which is set as the £3,200 is no more and the letter was not
delivered to inform the customer regarding this perspective. But the issues is examined regarding
not delivering the letter as due to errors arises at the local postal sorting office. As Andrew opens
their business for half day on Friday, but he gets the call from cherry in afternoon. Thus, in these
aspects, the issues which is undertaken is relating to not providing the special discount to the
customer once the letter is posted. Thus, breach is committed regarding not informing about the
scheme within the particular time period. As in three aspects the breach is examined, firstly it is
related to the offer which is made is wrongful or the revocation of the contract without informing
the parties in stipulated time or lagging in conveying the information.
RULE
Offer:

Under the contract Act, 1990 it is stated that it bound the person to enter into the valid
terms which is imposed in the contract. To enter into the agreement, the person must enter into
the deal regarding offering some valuable things to another person. This is said to be offered. It
is explained with the suit relating to Harvey V Facey [1893] AC 552, in which the deal is made
between the parties through the telegram. As Harvey offer the Bumper hall pen to Facey through
telegram but instead of accepting such offer the prices are set between the parties. Thus, it
indicates that the offer is made by one party regarding accepting such proposal1.
In case of Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597, the issues is raised regarding not getting
the accurate oats which they ordered from the Smith after receiving an offer of purchasing the
oats2. The another case which stated the matter of offer is that in case of Gibson v Manchester
City council [1979] as council offer the house to Gibson in respect of providing the accurate
security once they purchase the house. After accepting such offer and signing all the documents
the deal is cancelled3.
Invitation to treat:
It refers to the supply of information which is interpreted between the person regarding
inviting them to make an offer. The invitation to offer can be reneged at any time until it is not
accepted by any person or also no consideration amount is to be taken from the parties regarding
accepting such offer. Advertisement are considered to be invitation to offer where customer
offers the company regarding selling the products at the particular prices. In this stipulated case
of Partridge V Crittenden (1968) 2 All Er 421, it is stated that defendant places an offer for sale
of birds in the magazine. But under section 6 of the Protection of the birds Act, 1954, it is the
offences to sale the birds without the prior permission from the government. But the decision is
made under the contract act as its just the invitation of the offer not an offer of selling the
products4.
1 Harvey v. Facey (1893). 2013. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.casebriefsummary.com/harvey-v-facey-1893/>.
2 Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597. 2020. [Online]. Available through:
<https://lawcasesummaries.com/knowledge-base/smith-v-hughes-1871-lr-6-qb-597/>.
3 Gibson v Manchester City council [1979]. 2020. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd6ca>.

As in case of offer it is stated with the case of Carlill V Carbolic smoke ball Co [1893] 1
QB 256, the suit is related to making an offer the public through advertisement regarding using
the carbolic smoke ball as per the direction given by them and then earn the reward of the £100.
After using this, Carlill suffered from flu and after that he file the suit against such company in
relation to breach committed in their terms. In such manner the judgement is given in the favour
of the Carlill regarding accepting such offer and also liable to get compensation for the losses
incurred5.
It is also supported with the case of Fisher V Bell [1961] 1QB 394, that the goods which
are displayed are not carried to be criminal offences until it is harming any person right or
infringing the rights of the person6. In the suit of Spencer V Harding7, Pharmaceutical Society of
Great Britain v Boots [1953] 1 QB 401 Court of Appeal8, Heathcote Ball v Barry [2000] EWCA
Civ 2359 and Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 WLR 585 Court of Appeal10, the specific
condition are imposed in the advertisement regarding selling the products if they receive the
highest tender. But the contract is revoked instead of getting the highest tender.
4 Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204. 2020. [Online]. Available through:
<https://lawcasesummaries.com/knowledge-base/partridge-v-crittenden-1968-1-wlr-1204/>.
5 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 2020. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/contracts/contracts-keyed-to-calamari/the-agreement-
process/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-2/>.
6 "FISHER v BELL" REVISITED: MISJUDGING THE LEGISLATIVE CRAFT. 2013.
[Online]. Available through: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/41819974?seq=1>.
7 SPENCER V HARDING: 1870. 2020. [Online]. Available through:
<https://swarb.co.uk/spencer-v-harding-1870/>.
8 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd. 2020.
[Online]. Available through:
<https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_Great_Britain_v_Boots_Cash_
Chemists_(Southern)_Ltd.>.
9 Heathcote Ball v Barry [2000] EWCA Civ 235. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a938b3d60d03e5f6b82b913>.
10 Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. 2020. [Online]. Available through:
<https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Thornton_v_Shoe_Lane_Parking_Ltd>.

Revocation:
In these aspects, the offer can be renege at any time by the offeror before such deal in
accepted by any of the person. As in respect of offer it is necessary the communication is to be
undertaken so that parties must be familiar to deal in particular things and also decide to accept
the offer or not. But in some cases, the rights are given to the offeror is respect of revoking the
deal at any time. In suit of Dickinson V Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463, it is stated that the Dodds
offer to sell the house of £800 but also made some condition that the offer is open for the period
of Friday only. But, due to some situation, the deal is finalized with the third party and sell the
house11. In such case, the suit is file by the Mr. Dickinson regarding committing breach in laws
of the contract. The case can also be referred from the Errington v Errington Woods [1952] 1 KB
290 Court of Appeal12, Dahlia v Four Millbank Nominees [1978] Ch 231 Court of Appeal13 and
Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 Chancery Division14.
Acceptance:
It refers to such promise which is made by the person in context of accepting the offer. It
carries three major rules such as the acceptance must be done on the bases of communication or
the condition of accepting the deal must exactly relevant to the terms which is made during the
time of offer. The agreement must indicates to be certain. In case of matters related to the
communication, it is indicated that in case of Brogden V Metropolitan railway [1877] 2 Apps.
Cas. 666, the matters refer to the written agreement which is made between the parties regarding
supplying the coal15. The agreement of accepting the offer is also referred to the case of butler
11 Dickinson v Dodds. 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Dickinson_v_Dodds>.
12 Errington v Errington Woods [1952] 1 KB 290 Court of Appeal. 2017. [Online].
Available through: <https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff87860d03e7f57ec106f>.
13 Dahlia v Four Millbank Nominees [1978] Ch 231 Court of Appeal. 2017. [Online].
Available through: <https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff87960d03e7f57ec113a>.
14 Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 Chancery Division. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a938b4060d03e5f6b82bd34>.
15 Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company (1877) 2 App Cas 666. 2018. [Online].
Available through: <https://www.studentlawnotes.com/brogden-v-metropolitan-railway-
company-1877-2-app-cas-666>.

machine Tool V Ex- Cell-O Corporation [1979] 1 WLR 401 that acceptance must be made
regarding prices variation and the claimant had to pay the actual prices which is settled during
that particular time period16. In context of acceptance, the suit relating to the Adams v Lindsell
(1818) 106 ER 250 is that offer made through post and also the client is expected to get the
confirmation through the letter only17. The confirmation is given with the set time limit but due
to some error, the letter not received and in return, client feel that the plaintiff is not interested in
the wool. They sell the wool to the third party. The case is filed under the breach of the contract.
The matters related to consideration is cited in the following cases such as Chappel v
Nestle [1960] AC 87 House of Lords18 and Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] EWHC QB J57 Queen's
Bench Division19.
Postal rule:
It carries the simple rules as if the offer is made through post that offeror carries the right
to revoke the contract before carrying any acceptance of the offer. The another rule stated that
the letter of acceptance is posted before the revocation of the letter is received to the parties. It is
supported with the suit of the Stevenson, Jacques & Co V Mclean that the deal is made through
telegram and also expected to get the confirmation through this mode only. But the plaintiff gets
the confirmation late, so in these aspects the rule of acceptance is not applicable20.
APPLICATION
Offer:
16 Butler machine Tool V Ex- Cell-O Corporation [1979] 1 WLR 401. 2017. [Online].
Available through: <https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8cb60d03e7f57ecd835>.
17 Adams v. Lindsell. 2020. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/contracts/contracts-keyed-to-murphy/the-bargain-
relationship/adams-v-lindsell/>.
18 Chappel v Nestle [1960]. 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/chappel-v-nestle-1960>.
19 Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] EWHC QB J57 Queen's Bench Division. 2017. [Online].
Available through: <https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8d060d03e7f57ecdbc0>.
20 Stevenson v McLean [1880]. 2020. [Online]. Available through:
<https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/stevenson-v-mclean-1880>.

By referring the various cases which is cited in the offer, by comparing the cited case, it
is examined that the offer is made by the Andrew to its local customer base regrading selling the
new customer system. In the above cited case Harvey, Smith and Manchester City council, offer
to the parties the valuable things similarly as with the case of Andrew.
Invitation to offer:
In the case of Andrew, the invitation of offer is made through the letter advertisement on
starting of January 2019. By referring the suit of the Carbolic smoke ball Co, Fisher, Spencer and
Partridge, they all offered the things through advertisement mode. Thus, in such manner by
relating this case to the present case, it is stated that Andrew also make valid offer to the
customer through selling the computer system.
Revocation:
In the case of Andrew, they carry the rights to revoke the contract at any period before
getting any acceptance from the offeror or also the exchange of the consideration money. In case
of Dodds, they also carry the same right to revoke the contract before the deal is accepted by the
third parties.
Acceptance:
In the present case, the acceptances is done by the Bashir and Cherry regarding accepting
the offer. But it is stated the acceptances carries the essential elements in respect of
communication. But no such communication is ascertained regarding accepting the offer. In case
of Brogden, Ex- Cell-O Corporation and Lindsell they all accepted the offer through proper
communication.
Postal rule:
It carries the major rule that date is important in the case to revoke the contract. In suit of
Stevenson, Jacques the deal is revoked as the cancellation of the contract is made before the
stipulated time period. Thus, in this case the contract is revoked on 20th Jan and the acceptance is
received from the customer on 28th and 29th
CONCLUSION
From the above study, the report concludes the matter as this is not related to the breach
of the contract. In case of postal rule, it is stated that if the cancellation of the contract is made
before the acceptances of the letter is signed, than it not results to breach of the contract. As it's
the rights which is carried by the offeror regarding revoking any of the contract before getting

acceptance from any of the person or also the communication is made of accepting the offer.
Thus, this study concludes that Andrew not commit any breach with any of the customer. The
reason behind this justification is that the breach not affects the right of the parties and also the
contract is not made with any consideration. The acceptances of such offer is also not
communicated properly and thus before the acceptance is received before the deal is already
cancelled.
CONCLUSION
From the above discussion, contract law is mainly determined in respect of building the
strong relationship between the persons who decided to enter into the agreement. The situation of
breach arises regarding not working as per the set norms mentioned under the contract. In this
case the breach is not committed by Andrew, as the contract is not formed between the parties.