Contracts ppt.pptx

Harvey v Facey

1. Harvey vs. Facey (1893) AC 552 Presentation by- Taneesh Jain (BBA LLB(Hons) A

2. 03 01 02 04 05 06 Table of contents Introduction Facts of the case Issues of the case Concerned ICA rule Analysis Conclusion

3. 01 Introduction

4. Bro, but who is the plaintiff?

5. Meet the two sides of the case Facey Harvey Plaintiff Defendant

6. Facts of the case 02

7. Harvey, who was running the partnership company in Jamaica, he wanted to buy the property owned by Facey who was also negotiating with the Mayor and Council of the Kingdom of Kingston City for the same property. On October 6th, 1893 appellant sent a telegram regarding the purchase of property to Mr. Facey who was travelling on the train on that day as he did not want the property was sold to Kingston City. Telegram said “Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price-answer paid.” Mr. Facey replied “Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen£900.” In return, Mr. Harvey Replied “We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of nine hundred pounds asked by you. Please send us your title deed in order that we may get early possession.” Then Mr. Facey changed his mind and refused to sell the land to Mr. Harvey, on this basis Mr. Harvey sued him stating that there existed a contract between them and said that the telegram was an offer and he accepted it.

8. 03 Issues of t he case

9. Was there an explicit offer from Mr. Facey to Mr. Harvey for the sale of the said property for the consideration of £900 and is it capable of acceptance? Was there a valid contract or not? Was the telegram advising the lowest price an offer capable of acceptance?

10. Rules concerning the case 04

11. Section 7: Acceptance must be absolute. In order to convert a proposal into a promise, the acceptance must— Acceptance must be communicated It has to be absolute and unqualified It must be in the prescribed mode 02 01 Section 2(b), ICA “When the person to whom an offer is made (offeree) signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. INDIAN CONTRACTS ACT (1872)

12. 05 Analysis

13. The honorable Judges Bench reviewed the total matter of this case and upholding the Justice Curran’s verdict the Lordships held that the Telegraph 1 asks the respondent his willingness to sell the land and what is the lowest price of that land. But the respondent answered only the second part, and his willingness to sell the property was absent in the telegraph and therefore it cannot be expected to be binding upon him. Here the Court asserted that through the telegraph 3 the reply from the appellants cannot be considered an acceptance to the offer to sell them the land. So the respondent acceptance cannot be granted as a valid contract and actually no acceptance through any form was conveyed by the respondent. The Privy Council held that there was no contract concluded between the parties. Facey had not directly answered the first question as to whether they would sell and the lowest price stated was merely responding to a request for information not an offer. There was thus no evidence of an intention that the telegram sent by Facey was to be an offer.

14. Conclusion 06

15. 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 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 mere statement contains no implied acceptance to hold. This is because a legally enforceable agreement requires certainty to hold. Here, in this case invitation to offer is an abstract concept which was realized clearly and expressly and this concept is improvising over the period of time. Now, I must say that the principle of invitation to offer is clearly distinguishable from an offer and it has played a crucial role in understanding the nature of an offer.

16. I AGREE!

17. This landmark case laid down the foundation of the concept “invitation to offer”, where a person barely thinks about the notion of accepting the offer or not. Simply, we can say that when a person has not intimated his final desire to accept an offer, it is an invitation to offer. This clearly expresses that it is only a mere formal proclamation of information on the terms on which the person may be willing to negotiate soon. Lack of consensus ad idem between the two parties is the primary reason for which this is not a complete offer. There was no valid contract between both the parties because in reply to the first telegraph the defendant answered only one of the two questions : what is the lowest price of land and the answer was 900 pounds and it was only the reply of general information and only the invitation to offer but not an offer.

18. THANK YOU