Wednesday, April 21, 2010


1- wethwer the advertisment contituted a contract between both aprties
2- wether the adverstisment constituted an offer

The Defendant placed an advertisment in London papers that certain iteams, including brewing equipment and office furniture, would be placed up for action over there days in Bury St. Edmunds. The plaintiff obtained a commission to buy the office furniture and expended time andexpense to travel to Bury St. Edmunds to bid for the office furniture. On the third day. the lost for the office furniture were withdrawn. The plaintiss sued for loss of time and wxpense. The judgw at first instance found in favoure of the plaintiff.Leave was given to appeal to the High court.
The plaintiff submitted that the advertisment constituted a contract between themselves and the Defendant that the latter would sell the furniture according to the condition stated in the advertisement, and that accordingly the withdrawal of the of the furniture was a breach of contract. The defendant submitted the advertisement of a sale did not consitute a contarct that any particular lot or class of lots would actually be put up for sale.

The court held unanimously that the advertiswment did not constitute an offer, but rather was a mere declaration of intent. Blackburn, J. foumded hos judgment on public policy grounds, calling it a "startling proposition" that" any one who advertises a sale by publishing an advertisement (would become) reponsilble to everybody who attends the sale for his cab hire or travelling expenses". Quain and archibald, JJ also drew public plicy arguments, emphasising that there existed no authority on which to base a decision that the Defendant be liable to indemnify all those who attended hos auction. The court uphelp the appeal.

No comments:

Post a Comment