Duck-Egg Superman

Question:

‘For sale - Complete set of “Duck-egg Superman” models in plastic, each figure 5.5 cm high, painted. Twelve figures in all - $1,200. Phone 415 555 2671

 or write to Wyman. “Nos. 888, ABC Road, XYz’s Garden, Washington, D.C.

”.’ Times newspaper advertisement

On Sunday, Annabel wrote enclosing a cheque for $1,200 and saying, ‘If I do not hear anything by Thursday, I will assume the dear little things are mine’.

On Monday, Beryl wrote saying, ‘I offer you $1,000 for the lot’. This arrived on

Tuesday and Wyman wrote back saying, ‘No, I want $1,300’. When Beryl received

this she sent a letter saying. ‘Yes, I accept and enclose $600 and will pay the balance

of $700 within a month’.

Meanwhile, Cynthia wrote on Wednesday saying, ‘I will buy the models for $1,200’

and Wyman replied saying, ‘I want $1,300’. This letter was posted on Thursday and

Cynthia received it on Saturday when she posted a reply saying, ‘I accept’.

Meanwhile, Wyman wrote to Cynthia on Friday saying, ‘Sorry I have decided to keep

them’. Cynthia received this letter on the next Monday. It is now the Tuesday of

the next week and Annabel, Beryl and Cynthia have all arrived on Wyman’s doorstep

- advise Wyman on the legal position.

Answer:

This problem involves the discussion of the rules of offer and acceptance in the law of contract. An examination of some of these rules will reveal whether or not Wyman has made a contract with any of the three women involved.

The first point to be decided is whether the advertisement is an offer or only an invitation to treat. Usually the courts have held that an advertisement is an invitation to treat. An example which illustrates the point is the case of < Partridge v Crittenden > where wild birds were advertised for sale in a newspaper classified advertisement column. It was held that the advertisement was not an offer but an invitation to treat.

Thus, in this problem, Wyman’s advertisement is an invitation to treat, which means that he is inviting people to make offers and he is not bound by the terms of the advertisement.

Annabel’s claim to the models can now be considered. Her letter constitutes an offer and in order for a contract to come into being the offeree, Wyman, must accept and, in normal circumstances, communicate that acceptance. The offeror cannot impose acceptance on the offeree or stipulate that silence shall amount to acceptance. This point was considered in the case of < Felthouse v Bindley > in which the plaintiff had offered to buy the defendant’s horse for specific price and stated that if he heard no more he would consider the horse his at that price. Although there was evidence that the defendant had intended to accept, the court held that there was no contract as the defendant did not reply and therefore acceptance had not been communicated. Applying this principle to the problem, as Wyman has not replied, there is no contract between Wyman and Annabel and she is not entitled to the models.