Holborn Law: Case Is An Invitation To Contract

980 Words4 Pages

Question 1
Based on the circumstances of the above question, we need to identify whether the job advertisement that made by XYZ Sdn. Bhd. is an offer to contract.
The question of whether an advertisement of a job position on the newspaper is an offer to contract is mainly based on the intention which it made by the party in the case. If the party makes an advertisement that intends to be bound, once it is accepted undoubtedly then it can be explained as an offer. On the other hand, if the party who makes an advertisement without doing it on purpose, it is mere to be an invitation to treat (Holborn Law Tutors Ltd., 1982).
Offer is also known as a proposal which is one of the elements of a contract. According to Section 2 (a) Contract Act …show more content…

One of the most common examples of invitation to treat is an advertisement. An invitation to treat can be explained as preliminary communication which means inviting others to make an offer. During the process of invitation to treat, one party is making the invitation while another party who is interested can come forward to make an offer. The offer must be made by the opposite party that is noticed of the advertisement made. In the case of Hart v Mills, it is stated that an invitation to treat is the inviter willing to enter into negotiations but there is no offer to be bound by any …show more content…

Ltd. 1893. In the Partridge v Crittenden case, an advertisement that states that 'Bramble Finch cocks and hens, 25s each' was held to be an invitation to treat and there had been no offer for sale. The court held that if the advertisement is treated as an offer, this could lead to many actions for breach of the contract against the advertiser because of the number of stock for the birds were limited. Therefore, the appellant could not have intended the advertisement to be an offer (Marnah Suff, 1994). In contrast, the advertisement that made in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. case states that they offered to pay £100 to anyone who used their smoke balls and still get influenza within a specific time period. Mrs. Carlill sued the company for not compensating the promised reward to her that she still gets influenza after she tried to consume the smoke balls. The court held that the advertisement made by the company was an offer to the whole world and it is fall under a unilateral contract; hence they should pay for Mrs. Carlill. Another

Open Document