Evaluation of Offer and Acceptance

OFFER - The display of goods only being considered an invitation to treat is fair on sellers

This allows sellers to refuse to sell to under-age consumers. Also allows sellers to avoid selling goods at wrong prices if they have been incorrectly labelled - Fisher v Bell

HOWEVER - unfair on the consumer since it allows the seller o advertise goods in a misleading way while avoiding the consequences - Partridge v Crittenden

OFFER - Uncertainty over whether advertisements are invitations to treat or a unilateral offer

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co - fair that they are seen as unilateral offers, dubious medical products of the time - using a reward to test medical products is ethically grey

HOWEVER - distinction is confusing - idea on unilateral contracts may not be needed now, development of law on fraudulent trading

OFFER - The display of goods only being considered an invitation to treat is fair on sellers

This allows sellers to refuse to sell to under-age consumers. Also allows sellers to avoid selling goods at wrong prices if they have been incorrectly labelled - Fisher v Bell

HOWEVER - unfair on the consumer since it allows the seller o advertise goods in a misleading way while avoiding the consequences - Partridge v Crittenden

OFFER - Uncertainty over whether advertisements are invitations to treat or a unilateral offer

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co - fair that they are seen as unilateral offers, dubious medical products of the time - using a reward to test medical products is ethically grey

HOWEVER - distinction is confusing - idea on unilateral contracts may not be needed now, development of law on fraudulent trading

ACCEPTANCE - Silence is not acceptance is not fair since it creates a lack of certainty

It is not certain that the offeree truly did agree to all of the terms of the contract and at which point they did - Felthouse v Bindley

HOWEVER - goes against the rule of freedom of contract, if parties agreed to accept in silence then the court should not intervene with this

ACCEPTANCE - postal rule is fair

As set out by Adams v Lindsell, good protection at a time where the postal service was less reliable and had no alternatives - rules are also fair: post must be expected means, letter must be properly addressed, offeree must be able to prove that the letter was posted

HOWEVER, outdated and inconsistent to revocation - the letter has to arrive before revocation is valid, Byrne v Van Tienhoven

Also inconsistent to electronic acceptance - contract only made when the buyer has been given an acknowledgement of receipt - E-Commerce Regulations 2002

ACCEPTANCE - Postal rule does not apply to email or text

Creates inconsistency due to subjective decisions

• Brinkibon - acceptance occurred as soon as business opened

• Thomas v BPE Solicitors - reasonable to read email at 6pm

HOWEVER, protection under Article 11 of E-Commerce Regulations 2002