HARVEY V.S FACEY

INTRODUCTION

Harvey v. Facey is considered an essential case in Contract Law. It’s an illustration where the listed wasn’t to be held as an offer. Its significance is that it defined the difference between an offer and supply of information. In this case the Privy Council held that the suggestion of smallest respectable price doesn’t constitute an offer to vend, rather is can be considered as an assignation to treat i.e. to enter into any concession  

FACTS OF THE CASE

Mr Harvey, the complainant, was running a company in Jamaica and he wanted to buy Mr Facey’s property known as the “ Bumper Hall Pen ”. At the same time, Mr Facey was also in a concession with the Mayor and Council of King of Kingston City for the said property. On 6th October 1893, Mr Harvey transferred a Telegram to Mr Facey regarding the purchase of the property. The telegram read,” Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph smallest cash price.” This communication was basically an inquiry or question about the possibility of a sale. After reading the telegram Mr Facey replied, “ smallest Price for “Bumper Hall Pen£ 900 ” In this response, Facey didn’t explicitly state that he was willing to sell the property to Harvey but rather handed a price. The coming day, the complainant replied “ We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of£ 900 asked by you. Please shoot us your title deed in order that we may get early possession. ” This telegram indicated Harvey’s amenability to buy Facey, in response to Harvey’s acceptance, transferred a final telegram that said,” We decline to sell at£ 900.” Facey basically refused to sell the property at the price Harvey had indicated in their former communication. Displeased, Mr Harvey decided to sue Mr Facey claiming that his response( telegram 3) was an acceptance to Mr Facey’s offer, Hence, He’s bound by a contract.

ISSUE OF THE CASE

Is there a valid contract?

Whether there was an explicit offer from Mr Facey’s side to Mr Harvey for the purchase of Bumper Hall Pen for £900?

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

The Hon’ble Bech reviewed that the petitioner asked two questions in the first phone call, the first was whether the defendant was willing to sell the property to him, and the other was the minimum selling price.

However, the participant only answered the second part of the question by stating that the property was valued at £900. The answer, however, did not include a willingness to sell the property to Mr Harvey. Therefore, the operator’s [Telegram 2] response cannot be considered reasonable.

Therefore, the “consent” given by the respondent in Telegram 3 is irrelevant as there is no request.

The court ultimately held that Facey’s initial telegram was not an offer but merely a statement of price. It was considered an invitation to treat rather than a legally binding offer. Therefore, when Harvey accepted the price, it did not create a binding contract because there was no offer from Facey to accept in the first place.

RULE APPLIED

This landmark case laid the foundation for the concept of ‘invitation to offer. It can be explained as an offer is a clear and specific statement by one party to another party to enter into a legal contract; The so-called invitation to rectify or invitation to rectify is an expression of willingness to negotiate or enter into a contract. Thus, invitation to offer merely invites the people to make an offer to the acceptor and the ultimate say remains with the acceptor to form the invitation to offer to a valid contract or not.

CONCLUSION

This case law highlights the important legal distinction between an invitation to treat and an offer in contract law. An invitation to treat is an invitation for others to make an offer, whereas an offer when accepted, forms the basis of a legal contract. In this case Harvey VS Facey, the court concluded that there was no contract between the two parties as Facey’s initial telegram was not an offer but an invitation to treat hence Harvey is not legally bound to sell his property as there is no actual contract between them.

REFERENCES 

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6532-case-harvey-v-s-facey.html#:~:text=An%20proposal%20or%20offer%20cannot,to%20treat%20not%20an%20offer.

This Article is written by Tanya Baweja Of Maharaja Agrasen Institute Of Management Studies, Intern at Legal Vidhya

Admin