| CITATION | Harvey vs. Facey (1893) AC 552 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 29TH JULY, 1893 |
| COURT | Privy Council |
| APPELLANT | Mr. Harvey |
| RESPONDENT | Mr. Facey |
| BENCH | The Lord Chancellor, Lord Wastson, Lord Hobhouse, Lord Macnaghten, Lord Morris, Lord Shand. |
INTRODUCTION:
This is regarded as a major case in the area of contract law. This case serves as an illustration of price quoting that the court has ruled is not an offer. Its importance stems from the distinction it made between the terms offer and invitation to offer. The Privy Council concluded that the price quotation is an invitation to treat, or to participate in any discussion, even though stating the lowest price that a seller is willing to take does not suggest or constitute an offer. The Privy Council concluded that, in this instance, stating the lowest reasonable price does not constitute an offer to sell but rather an invitation to treat, that is, to enter into any talks.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The appellant, Mr. Harvey, was claiming to be a partnership firm in Kingston, Jamaica, and negotiations were taking place between the defendant, Mr. Facey, and the mayor of Kingston over the sale of the latter’s property. It was asserted that the Council reviewed the respondent’s offer to sell his land for £900 made on October 6, 1893, during a meeting. Later, the other day, while the respondent was travelling by train, Mr. Harvey wrote a telegraph to the respondent. “Will you sell us a Bumper Hall Pen?” seen the initial telegram. telegraph the least expensive cash price;”
Following receiving the message, Mr. Facey immediately responded, “Lowest Price for “Bumper Hall Pen £900” The next day, the appellant requested Mr. Facey to deliver his title deed through telegraph and agreed to purchase the aforementioned property for £900. The third telegraph was delivered to Mr. Facey, but he didn’t reply. He refused to sell his land when requested to carry out the supposed contract since, in his opinion, he had not made a guarantee to do so. Unhappy, the plaintiff went to the Court of Law via Justice Curran, who rejected the case in favour of Mr. Facey and claimed that the in question agreement lacked the necessary elements of a legitimate contract.
The appellant appealed Justice Curran’s ruling because she was not happy with it. The Appeals Court overturned Justice Curran’s ruling and stated that the appellant and respondent had a legal contract. Additionally, the Appeals Court determined that the respondent was unable to sell the property and mandated that it pay 40 shillings in contract breach damages to the former.
The appellant, who was still unhappy with the decision, then moved to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal to Her Majesty in Council. The Majesty Council supported Justice Curran’s judgement.
ISSUES
- 1.Was Facey’s offer to Harvey to sell the land for £ 900 explicit?
- Was the telegram advising the lowest price an acceptable offer?
- Is there a valid contract in place?
JUDGMENT
The Honourable Judges Bench considered the full matter and supported Justice Curran’s decision, stating that the respondent was initially questioned about his willingness to sell the property and the lowest price at which it could be sold. However, as the statement only addressed the topic of what price would be the lowest and made no indication of a desire to sell the land, he cannot be expected to be bound by it. In this instance, the court argued that the appellants’ third telegraph message cannot be understood as an acceptance of the offer to sell them the land, and as a result, no contract was enforceable on him.
The Lordships determined that the respondent’s response to the telegraph did not meet the conditions of an implicit contract to sell, even if the appellants had claimed that there had been an implied offer to purchase the land.
CONCLUSION
A valid contract requires a proposal and an acceptance to it and to make contract binding acceptance of the proposal must be notified to the proposer because a legally enforceable agreement requires sureness to hold. This case clearly explains the differentiation between invitation to offer and offer and it also throws a light explaining the nature of the offer as it plays a very important role. A valid and concluded contract requires a proposal and an acceptance of the proposal. To make a contract binding it is necessary that the proposal must be accepted and also the acceptance of the proposal must be notified to the proposer. A simple assertion has no obligation for acceptance. This is so that a legally enforceable agreement can be held to exist. In this instance, the invitation to contribute is an abstract idea that was realised clearly and specifically and is evolving through time. Now, I must state that the invitation-to-offer concept clearly distinguishes itself from an offer and has been essential in helping people comprehend the nature of an offer.
REFERENCE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/harvey_v_Facey
This article is written by CHAHAK AGARWAL of Lloyd School Of Law, Greater Noida, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
