Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Offer - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Prosecutor argued that by displaying a listed poison on the selves without the presence of a registered pharmacist, was constituting an offer for sale, and that when the customer places these items in their shopping baskets they were accepting the offer
      - Court decided that the goods displayed were merely invitations to treat, that did not amount to an offer to sell
        
        To hold otherwise would mean that the shop could insist that a shopper pay for goods which they had picked up and then returned to the shelf.
    - - The defendant store placed a newspaper advertisement offering to sell three furs worth $100 for $1 at 9am sharp on Saturday on a "first come first served basis". A week later the shop published a second advertisement offering two new mink scarves worth $90 for $1.
      - The store told the defendant that there was a house rule that the offer was intended for women only
      - The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that the advertisement was an offer and not an invitation to treat
        
        "where to offer is clear, definite and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation, it constitutes an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract"
        
        While the offeror has the right to change or modify the terms of their offer, they do not have the right after acceptance to impose new or arbitrary conditions not contained in the published offer.
    - - Defendant charged with offering a flick-knife for sale, displayed in shop window
      - Defendant was acquitted, as it was deemed an invitation to treat
- - - - Defendants advertised that they would pay £100 to any person who purchased a smoke ball and used it as directed and contracted influenza
      - Ad further stated that £1000 had been deposited in Bank as evidence of sincerity
      - Mrs Carlill contracted influenza despite purchasing and using the product correctly, claimed she was entitled to £100
      - Defendants argued that the ad was too vague and mere puffery, not constituting an offer
      - Court said that with a unilateral offer performance constituted acceptance, and that the consideration was Carlill buying and using the product in the agreed manner
      - The Court concluded that as the defendant company had deposited £1,000 un the bank there was no puffery, and the plaintiff was entitled to the £100
    - - Television ad in which several items were displayed which could be acquired if one collected a certain number of 'Pepsi Points'
      - "Harrier Fighter Jet $7 Million Pepsi Points"
      - Having acquired 15 Pepsi points, the young boy ordered the jet by adding a cheque for $700,000
      - Pepsi refused to supply the jet and the young boy sued for specific performance
      - The test of whether an advert is a binding offer is by an objective examination of what a reasonable person would have understood the advert to convey
      - The exception is where the advertisment is clear, definite, and explicit, and leaved nothing open for negotiation.
        
        This advert left plenty open for negotiation
        
        The advert specifically reserved the details of the offer into a seperate writing, the catalogue. The commercial itself made no mention of the steps needed to be taken to purchase the jet
        
        The absence of words of limitation such as "first come first served" rendered the alleged offer sufficiently indefinite
        
        The alleged offer was at most an invitation to treat, as no reasonable person could have believed that the ad actually offered Pepsi drinkers a fighter plane
        
        It was a mere advertising puff
    - - An example of a unilateral offer in this juristdiction
      - Read 2.29 of McDermott
- - - - "If, whatever a man’s real intention may be, he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he was assenting to the terms proposed by the other party, and that other party upon that belief enters into the contract with him, the man thus conducting himself would be equally bound as if he had intended to agree to the other party’s terms."