Norman Wells wrote:
> M.I.5¾ wrote:
> >"Alex Heney" wrote in message
>
> > > > Displaying the TV for sale is an "invitation to treat", not an
> > > > offer to sell. Look up The Pharmaceutical Society -v- Boots.
> > >
> > > Who said anything about "displaying the TV for sale"?
> > >
> > > In the example, the answer from the shopkeeper that it is £1000 is an
> > > offer to sell.
> >
> > Alex, even you should know that although the average man in the
> > street may regard the shopkeeper as offering the TV for sale,
> > nevertheless in law it is only an 'invitation to treat'. The offer
> > is made by the buyer when he offers to buy the item for the
> > advertised price. As has often been discussed here, even after such
> > an offer has been made, the shopkeeper is under no obligation to sell
> > the item.
>
> No one is saying anything about 'the advertised price'. Advertisements,
> shelf displays and price tickets are all invitations to treat and not offers
> to sell. That's very well known and understood. So, no acceptance by a
> potential purchaser is possible, and no contract can be formed. The
> situation changes, however, when the communication becomes one-to-one with a
> person who can commit the shop. Then a price quotation stops being an
> invitation to treat but an offer to sell at the quoted price, and all that is
> required is acceptance by the prospective purchaser and a contract is formed.
A price quotation is not an offer to sell its a communication of what you are
prepared to accept for the item .
The offer is the customer wanting to buy it , you offer to buy it at the quoted
price , this does not have to be accepted it is only an offer its very basic
contract law
There is a big difference between a shopkeeper saying that tv costs £1000.00
and i will sell you that tv if you give me £1000.00 its the later thats an
offer the former is not
>
> A characteristic of 'invitations to treat' is that they are made generally to
> all and sundry, not individually.
>
> Why is it that people have such difficulty in understanding such a simple
> concept?
>
> > If the shopkeeper advertised price constituted the offer and the
> > customer accepted that offer, then the shopkeeper would have a
> > binding contract with anyone who entered his shop and stated that
> > they wished to buy. To refuse to sell under those circumstances
> > would be a breach of contract.
>
> Well, it isn't for exactly the reasons I've explained. If only MI5 going on
> 6 read any of my posts he'd understand this, because it's simple enough even
> for him.
>
> > Yet we know that a shopkeeper is not
> > obliged to sell anything to anybody.
>
> He is once he's contracted to do so.
|