Offer and Acceptance

Later on Sheena finds a pair of shoes labelled ₤ 25.  Sheena decides to purchase these shoes and goes to the cash desk.  Tom, the cashier, informs her that they were actually    ₤ 35.  Sheena believes that she should be allowed to buy the shoes at the labelled price.  It is important to distinguish a true offer from what is known as an invitation to treat.  An example of a case which is similar to Sheena’s is Fisher v Bell based on the display of goods with a price ticket attached. Where the defendant displayed a flick knife in his shop window.  He was convicted of a criminal offence of offering knives for sale, but on an appeal, Lord Justice Parker stated that it was an “invitation to treat not offer”, therefore the conviction was overturned contrary to the legislation.  In this circumstance, the shoes Sheena wished to purchase are in fact an “invitation to treat”, otherwise if it was a offer, then on taking them to the cash desk she would be accepting the offer, as Lord Justice Somervell stated in the Boots Case : “otherwise customers wouldn’t be able to change their minds”.  In this case, Boots was charged with the offence concerning sale of certain medicines which could only be sold by a pharmacist, or under supervision of a qualified pharmacist.  The issue was that when a customer picked the medicine up off a shelf, they were not being supervised and therefore was committing an offence.  The Court of Appeal stated that the shelf display was not an actual offer but an invitation to treat and therefore the offer is made by the customer when being paid for at the cash desk, at this point it would be supervised by a pharmacist, therefore there was no offence.  This giving Sheena a good argument that when she approached the cash desk the price on the shoes was an invitation to treat and she offered that price making her the offeror.  When the cashier, Tom, informed her that the actual price was ₤ 35, he was in fact making a counter offer.  A counter offer terminates the original offer, the main case highlighting this is Hyde v Wrench , where the defendant offered to sell his farm for ₤ 1,000 and the plaintiff responded by offering to buy it for ₤ 950.  Therefore the plaintiff made a counter offer. The farm owner refused and the plaintiff then tried to buy for ₤ 1,000, but it was held that this offer was no longer available; it had been terminated by the counter offer.  It is then up to the farmer to make a new offer.  Sheena may decline the counter offer of  ₤ 35, but unless she decides to make a new offer, the offer at the moment would be ₤ 35.  It must be made clear whether it is a counter offer or a request, which isn’t actually killing the offer, due to it sometimes is difficult to tell whether a counter-offer has taken place, sometimes it is merely a request for information, shown in the case of Stevenson v McLean (1880) where in this case, in response to an offer to sell iron, the price and quantity was accepted but the offeree wished to know whether delivery could be staggered.  The defendant believed that the request had actually been a counter offer and therefore sold the iron to a third party.  His claim that it was a counter offer failed as it was believed that it was not a rejection of the offer, merely an enquiry about it, and the offer was still open to acceptance.  A final case that holds the principle that a second offer will revoke the first offer if it is completely inconsistent with the first is Picksford v Celestrica (2003)  where Picksford sent a fax but later sent a second fax with more definite details which was seen as a counter offer.  Celestrica sent a confirmation with different terms agreeing with the first fax, this being a second counter offer.  Picksford accepted the counter offer by its conduct of performing its services therefore Celestrica’s counter offer was the accepted.  Overall, these cases prove that Sheena can buy the shoes for the price which it stated on the label, if she made a counter offer to Tom of 25 pounds and he accepted it.    

On Sheena’s way out of the store, she found a wallet belonging to Nick.  She returns it to him and then on her way home she notices a poster on a notice board requesting the return of the wallet and offering a reward for ₤ 50.  She then returns to Nick’s house where he says that he is a not going to pay her the reward.  Whether or not Sheena can receive the reward is very simple answer.  The offeree cannot accept an offer which he/she does not realise exists.  This is shown in the case Bloom v American Swiss Watch Co. (1915) where information was given which led to the arrest of thieves who had broken into a man’s premises.  The person whom gave the information was without knowledge of the ₤ 500 reward being offered by the man.  On finding out about this reward he tried to claim it.  It was held that because he was unaware of the existence of the reward, he could not accept it and the man was not required to pay the reward.  This case legally connects but seems morally unsatisfactory for Sheena’s case.  This proving that Sheena could not accept the reward unless Nick decided to give it her, although he does not have to do this.  An Australian case similar to this was R v Clarke where a different conclusion was reached.  Although the man saw the offer, when he later decided to give the necessary information, he not only admitted to acting solely to save his own skin, but also at the time he gave the information, the question of the reward had passed out of his mind.  It was held that his claim must fail, as they believed he was in the same position as if he had never heard of the reward.  Therefore Sheena took the wallet back to Nick without being aware of the reward therefore she was not motivated by the offer and the existence of the offer had no effect on her returning of the lost wallet.  Another case following along the same line as motive for acceptance is Williams v Carwardine (1833) where the person actually was aware of the reward but gave the information due to the motives of spite and revenge.  Although she gave information for this, she was aware of the reward and therefore was entitled to the reward.

In conclusion, Sheena was entitled to purchasing the mini disc player for ₤ 10 due to her accepting the offer, the offer was never revoked as it must take place before acceptance and on queuing and entering the store, Sheena had accepted the offer.  Not enough reasonable steps were taken to revoke the offer before acceptance.  Sheena will only be able to purchase the shoes for ₤ 25 if she offers a counter offer of ₤ 25 and the cashier, Tom, accepts this, otherwise no contract will be made without an acceptance.  Nick does not need to give Sheena the reward, although he may offer it her, he does not have to as she was unaware of the reward before returning it to him, and she returned this to him without a need for a motive.