Contract and Invitation

Only available on StudyMode
  • Topic: Contract, 1985, Offer and acceptance
  • Pages : 8 (2876 words )
  • Download(s) : 130
  • Published : November 21, 2012
Open Document
Text Preview
1.Offer
1. Offer means a proposal by a person in which he makes his willingness to enter into a legally binding contract for some conside¬ration. 2. An offer is made with the object of getting consent of the offeree. 3. An offer can be accepted by the offeree.

4. An offer when accepted becomes an agreement.
Invitation to Offer
1. An Invitation to offer means an intention of a person to invite others with a view to enter into an agreement. 2. An invitation to offer on the other hand is made with
3. An invitation to offer cannot be accepted by the person to whom it is made. 4. An invitation to offer cannot be accepted at all.

2.An offer / proposal are necessarily for the formation of an agreement. Section 2(a) of Contracts Act 1950 said when person signifies to another his willingness to do / to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to act / abstinence, he is said to make a proposal and invitation to treat means an invitation to make an offer.

A) There are many distinguishing between offer and invitation to treat. The first distinguishing is from meanings. Offer is an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed, the offeree. Invitation to treat different with offer it means an invitation to make an offer. An invitation to treat is not an offer, but an indication of a person's willingness to negotiate a contract. Based on the case:

COELHO v. THE PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION[1964] M.L.J.12

In this case, the applicant, a Health Inspector under the Town Board, Tanjong Malim, applied for the post of Assistant Passport Officer in the Federation of Malaya Government Oversea Missions advertised in the Malay Mail dated 19 February 1957. Consequently, the applicant was informed that he was accepted and, after undergoing training, he was posted to the Immigration Office, Kuala Lumpur, where he remained until December 1958 when he was transferred to the Immigration Office at Johor Bahru.

On 5 November 1959, the Secretary to the Public Services Commission in a letter addressed to the applicant as 'Assistant Passport Officer on Probation' informed him that, following a report from the Controller of Immigration concerning his conduct in the irregular issue of certain passports, disciplinary action was being taken against him with a view to his dismissal. The applicant made representation as invited by the said letter and, on 24 December 1959, the applicant was informed that the respondent had decided that he should not be dismissed but that his appointment on probation be terminated forthwith by payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice.

The applicant now moved the court for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the respondents on the grounds of error in law, want of jurisdiction, and failure to observe the principles of natural justice. (An order of certiorari is an order of the court directing that something be done; in this case, the court order applied for was one directing that the decision of the respondents be overturned).

It was held that:

1. That the Malay Mail advertisement was an invitation to qualified persons to apply and the resulting applications were offers. 2. The information conveyed to the applicant was an unqualified acceptance to join the overseas mission and he so understood it.

B) Second distinction between offer and invitation to treat is an offer maybe made orally in writing or by conduct such as example of an offer made by conduct is where a customer in a supermarket chooses goods and hands them to the cashier, who then accepts the customer's offer to buy. Invitation to treat may made by displaying goods in shop windows, on shelves, advertisement, tender / auction or a statement of price. Based on the case of:

PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN v. BOOTS CASH CHEMIST LTD[1953] 1 A11 ER...
tracking img