International Business

Introduction

Amelia was advertised her airplane for sale in Monday's Daily Chronicle for £20,000 for quick sale. Amelia was show that she made an advertisement. Whether or not advertisements can amount to offer depends to a large extend on whether they are unilateral or bilateral, that is capable of acceptance by one or limited number of person, or open to the world to accepted. In the case of Partridge v. Crittenden, the defendant advertized in a newspaper 'Bramble finch cocks and hens, 25 shillings each'. Offering a wild bird for sale is contrary to the Protection of Birds Act 1954, and was convicted. The divisional court quashed the conviction. It was construed that this advertisement was an invitation to treat, and not an offer for sale. Generally, advertisement is an invitation to treat. Invitation to treat means that it comes before an offer is made and is preliminary to the making of an offer. This is when the party does not make an offer but invites the other party to do so. This occurs when parties negotiate before making a contract. These preliminary exchanges of information are not offer because the party making the invitation to treat does not intend to be legally bound on acceptance. For example case, Gibson v. Manchester City Council, the City Treasurer wrote a letter to Mr Gibson stating that the council may be prepared to sell the house to him at the purchase price of £2,180 after less 20% (freehold). The letter is invited Mr Gibson to make a formal application which he did. In the normal course, this would probably have been followed by the preparation and exchange of contracts but before that process had been completed. The policy of selling council houses was reversed and the council decided only to complete those transactions where exchange of contracts had taken place. So that Mr Gibson sued the council that a binding contract had come into existence but the court held that the treasurer's letter was at most an invitation to treat and that therefore Mr Gibson's application was an offer and not an acceptance (Keenan,2006,pg88). The case was explained that invitation to treat is totally different to offer.

There are 2 types of offer which are unilateral offer and bilateral offer. Unilateral offer means that only a party making the offer communicates, one in which the offeree accepts the offer by performing an act which indicates their agreement with the bargain while bilateral offer means that there is an exchange of promises between two parties. A valid offer must contain the 3 conditions which are specific and comprehensive, communication, and intension to be bound once accepted. If the offeror cannot satisfy the 3 conditions together mean that the offer cannot be formed. Not only the offer contains the conditions, but also for an acceptance. An acceptance must also satisfy 3 conditions to form it, there are final and unqualified of the terms of an offer, mirror image rule, and communicated from the offeree to the offeror. In Amelia's case, it is a bilateral offer because Amelia is the offeree that she give the invitation to the offeror whose are Billy, Charles, Donald, and Eddie to make an offer.

Billy

When Amelia was advertised this advertisement, Billy was came to see the aeroplane on Tuesday and said that he could give Amelia £19,000 for it; but he told Amelia that he would give her a definite answer by Friday. This means that although Billy was made an offer to Amelia but it does not satisfy the condition of specific and comprehensive. Therefore, the offer made by the Billy cannot be formed. But on Thursday, Amelia posted a letter to Billy agreeing to sell the aeroplane for £19,000, but Billy did not receive this letter until Saturday. Amelia accepted Billy's offer is use the method of acceptance by non-instantaneous communication. But, since that the offer made by Billy cannot be formed, it's means that there is no offer between the Amelia and Billy. So that, Amelia cannot make an acceptance even a rejection or counter offer to Billy because there is no satisfy the condition of acceptance of mirror image rule. Therefore, the acceptance by Amelia cannot be formed. Billy then went to Amelia's house and produced a cheque for £15,000 and said 'that's the best I can do'. Billy this action was means that he was created a new offer to Amelia for buying her aeroplane. But Amelia was refused to accept this sum. This shows that Amelia was rejected Billy's offer. This is similar to the case of Stevenson v. McLean, the defendant offered on Saturday to sell to the plaintiff 3,800 tons of iron 'at 40s nett cash per ton, open till Monday'. Early on Monday the plaintiff telegraphed to the defendant: 'Please wire whether you would accept 40 for delivery over two months, or if not longest limit you would give.' No reply was received, so by a telegram sent at 1.34pm on the same day the plaintiff accepted the offer to sell at 40s cash. Meanwhile the defendant sold the iron to a third party person and informed the plaintiff of this in a telegram dispatched at 1.25pm. The telegrams crossed. The plaintiff sued to recover damages for breach of contract. They would be entitled to succeed if the original offer was still open when they sent their telegram at 1.34pm, for, as will be seen later, an acceptance is complete and effective at the moment when a letter is posted or a telegram is handed into the post office. But was the first telegram sent by the plaintiff a counter-offer? In the result Lush J held that the plaintiff had no made a counter-offer, but had addressed to the defendant 'a mere inquiry, which should have been answered and not treated as a rejection of the offer'(Furmston,1991,pg38).

Charles

When Amelia was advertised to give invitation for Charles, Charles was sent an email to Amelia to give an offer of £18,000 to buy the airplane. Although Amelia was read the email but she did not reply to it. This shows that Amelia was no accepted Charles's offer means there is no acceptance. However, Charles was sent an email that stated, 'I must have the aeroplane and accept your offer of £20,000.' This shows that Charles had give a new offer of £20,000 to Amelia to buy the airplane but Amelia was not give respond about it and she did not make a final and unqualified acceptance to Charles and the communication between them was clearly shows that not completely. For example as the same case with Charles is Felthouse v. Bindley (1862)11 CB (NS) 869,142 ER 1037(CP), the fact is the plaintiff discuss to buy a horse from his nephew and wrote to him if he hear no more about it from his nephew he will consider the horse is hims. Although his nephew wants to sell the horse for him but he did not reply to the plaintiff and