Case Summary - Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council [1990]

Facts of the case
The defendant council invited tenders for operating flights from the defendant airport. The tenders should be submitted by 12 noon on 17 March.

The plaintiff on 11 am 17 Match delivered a tender into the Town Hall letter box. However, the defendant’s staff only emptied the box the next morning. 

The plaintiff ‘s tender was stamped with 18th March. It is believed by the defendant that the plaintiff’s tender was submitted late and because of that, did not consider it and awarded the concession to another company. 

Held 
There was an implied offer in the invitation to tender where the timely tenders would be considered. By submitting the timely tender, the plaintiff had accepted the offer. 

Conclusion 
There was an implied offer in the form of timely tenders in the invitation to tender. 

Case Summary- Harvela Investments v Royal Trust Co of Canada [1985]

Facts of the case
The defendant R invited the plaintiff H and  a second defendant O to submit the sealed bids doe specific shares.
The defendant R, promised to  accept the highest bid. 
H bid $2 175 000 and O bid $2 100 000 and $101 000 more than any other offer. 
As a result, R believed that he he was bound to sell to O the shares for $2 276 000.
R’s solicitor sent a telex to O and H stating that ‘in the circumstances, our clients are bound to accept and do herby accept the offer received from O
H sought an order for specific performance and  a declaration that R was bound to transfer the share to it.

Held 
R’s invitation to bid created a fixed bidding sale. Therefore, it was not consistent with the intention to accept referential bids (the bids that are based on reference to other bids).
As a result, R was obliged to accept H’s bid as the highest bid submitted that was valid. 
The telex was not an offer or acceptance of any new contract. It was an attempt to fulfill the existing obligations between R and O. In conclusion, no obligation to sell shares to O. 

Conclusion 
The invitation to bid created a fixed bidding sale where the defendant was obliged to accept the highest bid and not referential bid. 

​Case Summary - Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979]

Facts of the case 
A letter was sent by the defendant to the plaintiff with words such as ‘the corporation may be prepared to sell the house…. If you would like to make a formal application to buy your council house, please complete the enclosed application form and return to me as soon as possible’

The plaintiff returned the form and seeking a lower price. However, the defendant refused to do so. The plaintiff asked for the application to proceed as per his application. 

Due to the change of control of the defendant council from the Conservatives to the Labour Party, the sale of the house to the plaintiff was refused. 

Held 
In Court of Appeal, Lord Denning MR stated that there was an agreement for the sale of the house between the parties after looking at the correspondence as a whole. 

Lord Diplock in House of Lord however stated that ‘I can see no reason in the instant case for departing from the conventional approach of looking at the…documents…and seeing whether on their true construction there is to be found in them a contractual offer by the council to sell the house to Mr. Gibson and acceptance of the offer by Mr. Gibson’

Based on the conventional approach it was found by the House of Lords that the defendant council had not made a contractual offer to the plaintiff. 

Case Summary- Partridge v Crittenden [1968]

Facts of the case
Mr Partridge is a defendant who advertised the sale of bramblefinches at 25 shillings each in a classified advertisement in the periodical, ‘Cage and Aviary Bird’.

It was an offence under the Protection of Birds Act 1954 to offer for sale live birds including bramblefinches. 

Held 
Per Lord Parker CJ, a circular and advertisement could not be supposed to bind its author to sell to anyone answering the advertisement in an unlimited number of some product. 

Per Ashworth and Blain JJ the case of Fisher v Bell must be followed where the advertisement was not an offer for sale. 

Conclusion
An advertisement in a newspaper is an invitation to treat. 

Case Summary –Fisher v Bell [1961]

Facts of the case
The window display of the defendant’s shop included a flick knife with the label ‘Ejector knife 4s’.

It was an offence under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 to offer for sale such a knife. 

Held 
To display a good in a shop window is not to make an offer for sale. The phrase offer for sale should be given its meaning in a general contract law. In this case, display in the window is merely an invitation to treat. 

Case Summary- Grainger & Son v Gough [1896]

Facts of the case 

The appellants were wine merchants. 
They were also the agents for Lois Roederer.
Lois Roederer was the French wine and champagne merchant. 
A circulated price list of wines from Lois Roederer was circulated. Orders were taken and passed to Roederer who sent the wine from French. 

Commission was given to the appellants from Roederer on all wine sold. 

The respondent, tax inspector sought to tax the appellants as if they were carrying on trade in the UK. 

Held 
There was no contract in the UK. The contracts were made with Roederer in France not with the appellants in England. 

Per Lord Herschell LC , the price list does not amount to an offer to supply and unlimited quantity of the wine as described in the price name. 

Offers were made when the customers placed the orders and later accepted by Roeder

 Case Summary - Rooke v Dawson [1895]

Facts of the case 

The trust deed provided for an award to a student who had gone to study at either New College London or University College London from Mill Hill School.

The award was also for student who had obtained the highest mark on the examination set by the trustee. 

The trustees of the scholarship fund advertised and held the examination. 

The plaintiff obtained the highest marks but the trustees / defendants refused to award the scholarship.

Held 
Per Chitty J, the advertisement was nothing more than a proclamation that an examination for a scholarship would be held. 

There is no announcement that scholar who obtained the highest mark will be awarded the scholarship. 

The court refused to import the terms of the trust deed into the advertisement and there was no contract between the parties. 

Case Summary - Harris v Nickerson [1873]

 Facts of the case

The defendant advertised that on 12,13 and 14 August 1872, an auction of brewing materials, plants and office furniture was to take place at Bury St Edmunds. 

The plaintiff went to the place from London on 12 August 1872 to purchase the office furniture. 

On 14 August 1872, a notice was posted that the office furniture would not be put for sale. 

The plaintiff later claimed two days’ loss of time, two days’ board and lodging and 2/3rd class railway fare.
​
Held 
Per Archibald J, the advertisement is a mere declaration of intention and not a contractual offer. Therefore, no claim could be brought by the plaintiff. 

​Case Summary - Spencer v Harding [1870]

Facts of the case
A circular was advertised by the defendant.

It stated that ‘we are instructed to offer to the wholesale trade for sale by tender the stock in trade of Messrs G Eilbeck & Co… which will be sold at a discount in one lot’

The plaintiff made the highest bid. However, it was not accepted by the defendant. 

Held 

Per Willes J, it was held that the circular was a mere attempt to ascertain whether the offer can be obtained within such margin as the sellers are willing to adopt.

The circular did not amount to offer to accept to the highest bid. 

As a conclusion, the defendant had not obligation to accept the bid from the plaintiff.

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd [1953] 1 ALL ER 482 
 
Facts of the case 

A new self-service system was refurbished by Boots. 
Based on s18 Pharmacy and Poison Act 1933, the supervision of a registered pharmacist is required for the sale of certain drugs and poisons. 

Issue

The issue was when did the contract formed.  Was there a contract when the customers removed the goods from the shelves or when the goods were presented to the cash desk for payment?

Held 

The court held that the present of the goods in the shelves was considered as an invitation to treat. 
The court also held that there was a contract when the goods were presented to the cash desk where there was a pharmacist present.