Solving legal problem??

Question

I have got a problem in which I want you help me solving. It is a question regarding contract law which says:

About 15 miles from Potters Bar, in quiet countryside, there is a clothing factory with its own factory shop. In the shop window there is a notice stating:

"Limited offer, twenty RD23 anti-fit jeans at £30 each. First come, first to buy"

Slinky, who lives in Potters Bar, hears about the notice from friends who have visited the shop. Slinky does not have a car and therefore writes to the shop ordering a pair of RD23 anti-fit jeans. In his letter, Slinky asks if the factory can send him the jeans by courier.

After posting the letter, Slinky decides that he cannot afford to buy the jeans after all. Slinky telephones the shop manger and cancels the order but the shop manager then says that it is too late because Slinky's letter has been posted. The letter arrives next day.

Advise Slinky.

Yours Sincerely
New Lawyer

Answer 1

The general rule is that an advertisement or the display of goods for sale is an invitation to treat, rather than an offer (see Partridge v Crittenden [1968]. In that case Lord Parker CJ stated that there was 'business sense' in treating advertisements as invitations to treat becuase if they were treated as offers the advertiser might find himself contractually obliged to sell more goods than he in fact owned. This argument is not conclusive because it could be implied that the offer was only capable of acceptance 'while stocks last'. See also Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists [1953].

An exception to the general rule is when an offer is to the whole world and that a contract is made with those persons who performed the condition on the faith of the advertisement. A promotion to collect several tokens from a product in order to claim a reward would fall into this exception. The classic example is the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893].

In the example you give, the offer is not too speculative to found a claim. If for example, the advertisement was that the jeans were worth £30.00 then there would be no claim, because the price is uncertain. However, the word "at" suggests that the price is fixed at £30.00. The offer is, of course, on a first come first buy basis, so an implied term is that the offer is limited to the stock in-store.

Having determined that the offer is an invitation to treat, rather than an offer, you need to consider how it is transposed into an offer which is capable of acceptance. The notice is explicit in that the offer is on a 'frst come, first to buy' basis. That indicates that the offer is made in-store, to those who take the trouble to shop there.

Is there a counter-offer?

There probably is. The letter written by Slinky is an invitation to the store manager to accept an alternative form of acceptance; namely acceptance by post. Slinky goes on to ask for the jeans to be sent by courier which suggests that it is the store's conduct in processing the order and contaacting a courier which is capable of amounting to acceptance (Carlill) of the counter-offer.

So there is an acceptance by the store's conduct of a counter offer made by Slinky.

Slinky has promised to pay the store £30.00 if the jeans can be sent by courier. There is a promise with sufficient clarity for the courts to enforce it.

The payment of £30, or the promise to pay, is sufficient consideration. The store's acceptance to use a courier would probably be sufficient consideration without it.

There is clearly an intention to create legal relations as the Sale of Goods Act applies to such transactions.

However, this appears to be an offer and acceptance case with a 'twist'. I describe it that way because the store was not actually aware of the counter-offer when Slinky telephoned them. The letter arrived the following day. A counter-offer 'kills off' the original offer so as to render it incapable of subsequent acceptance.

The counter-offer is only capable of acceptance when the offeree has been informed that the store has accepted the terms of the counter-offer; namely that the jeans will be delivered by courier rather than on a first come first served basis at the store itself. Until the letter arrives at the store then it has not become aware of the counter-offer, let alone complied with its terms.

The answer to your question then is that the letter to the store was a counter-offer. Acceptance of the counter-offer is probably either when the letter reaches the store or when the store owner actually reads the letter. Probably the former (see: The Brimmes [1975]). The counter-offer can thus be withdrawn at any time before the letter arrives at the store. The telephone conversation cannot be taken as a counter-offer. It is explicable only as a query or a withdrawel of the counter-offer.

Answer 2

If I were to defend Slinky, I would argue that at the time Slinky posted the letter there was no "meeting of the minds" between the two parties.

Also, I would argue that the clothing factory's advertisement did not constitute contractual terms because an advertisement is merely an invitation to bargain.

Furthermore, I would argue that Slinky rescinded the contract before consideration was given.

Answer 3

The advertisement constitutes an invitation to treat.
Slinkey's letter contains an offer, but the offer is withdrawn before it even comes to the notice of the other party.
There can no acceptance, therefore, of the offer, as it is known by the other party to be withdrawn.
Ergo -- no contract.
This makes it unnecessary to wonder about the missing element in this question -- the apparent lack of consideration in the deal. Did Slinky send any payment?

Answer 4

I am sick of hearing of people who try and wriggle out of contracts. Surely it doesn't take a big brain to work out whether you can afford thirty quid or not. I don't suppose he paid for the stuff anyhow so the shop manager won't send it but it could be that they have been delivered and the cheque has bounced. My advice to Slinky is "Pay the money and stop playing games"

Answer 5

Slinky is in the right. The cancelled order is quite within slinky's rights as a consumer.

Answer 6

As a witness of Jehovah the All Mighty God, we are a tool guided by His Holy Spirit. We have never asked for credit, you are right, the credit does belong to Jehovah. The same thing goes for the blood issue. At one time almost everyone was against witnesses for refusing blood transfusions. Now people are saying they are a witness so they don't have to have one when they end up in the hospital! Ha! Only Jehovah's spirit could do that and spread the GOOD NEWS OF GOD'S KINGDOM so speedily in our time. Even people making jokes about us, we don't worry God's name is being made known, isn't it?

Answer 7

He needs to mail a certified letter to them telling them the order is cancelled, it needs to be signed for and he needs to have a copy of what he sent in the letter.

Answer 8

Rather than ask that here why got to a legal website like www.expertlaw.com and ask that question and get real legal replies