| Citation | (1893) AC 552 |
| Date of Judgment | July 7, 1893 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Case Type | Contract law case |
| Appellant | Mr. Harvey |
| Respondent | Mr. Facey |
| Bench | The Lord Chancellor, Lord Watson, Lord Hobhouse, Lord McNaughton, Lord Morris [Delivery of the Judgement], Lord Shand |
“Harvey v. Facey” is a legal case that was decided in 1893 by the Privy Council, the highest court of appeal in Jamaica at the time. While this case is not as well-known as some other legal cases, it has become a classic example in contract law and is often studied in legal education for its significance in understanding contract formation.
Case Background:
- The case involved a telegraphed exchange of messages between two parties, Harvey and Facey, in the context of a potential sale of property.
- Harvey sent a telegraph to Facey inquiring about whether he would sell a particular piece of land and asking for the lowest price. Facey replied with a telegram stating, “Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen is £900.”
- Harvey, in response, sent another telegram stating, “We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for the £900 asked by you.”
Key Legal Issue:
- The central issue in the case was whether a binding contract had been formed based on the exchange of telegrams between Harvey and Facey.
Court Decision:
- The Privy Council held that there was no enforceable contract between the parties.
- The court determined that Facey’s telegram merely provided information about the lowest price at which he was willing to sell the property, but it did not constitute an offer.
- Harvey’s telegram, in which he expressed agreement to buy the property for £900, was held to be an offer, not an acceptance of an offer. However, this offer had not been accepted by Facey, as he did not explicitly confirm the sale in his previous telegram.
- Therefore, there was no mutual assent, which is a fundamental element of contract formation.
Legal Significance:
- The case of Harvey v. Facey is often cited in contract law to illustrate the importance of clear and unequivocal offer and acceptance in contract formation.
- It underscores the principle that mere inquiries, price quotations, or negotiations do not necessarily constitute offers capable of forming a contract. An offer must be distinguished from preliminary communications and must be met with a clear and unconditional acceptance to create a binding contract.
- The case serves as a cautionary example for parties engaged in negotiations and highlights the importance of precise communication in contractual relationships.
In summary, Harvey v. Facey is a classic case in contract law that emphasizes the need for a clear offer and unequivocal acceptance for a contract to be valid. It highlights the importance of careful communication in contractual negotiations.
References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_v_Facey
This Article is written by Lovely singh of Agra College Agra , Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
.
