KARTHIK.T | SASTRA DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY THANJAVUR | 16th July 2020
Harvey vs Facie
Facts:
The transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant, in this case, involved 3 telegrams.
- Telegram by the defendant – will you sell as the bumper hall pen telegraph at the lowest price.
- Telegram by the defendant to the plaintiff – lowest price for the bumper hall pen is 900 pounds.
- Telegram by the plaintiff to the defendant – we agree to buy the bumper call pen for 900 pounds.
In the Telegram, the defendant did not mention the sale for a bumper hall pen. The defendant has only told the amount for the bumper hall pen. However, the defendant refused to sell the estate at the price. So the plaintiff filed the case against the defendant.
Issues:
- Whether it is a valid contract or not?
- Whether it is a binding contract or not?
- Was the telegram advising of the lowest price of 900 pounds an offer capable of acceptance?
Observation:
After careful scrutiny of the wordings of all the three telegrams, it held that there was no binding contract between them. It is not a valid contract between Harvey and Facie. In the third telegram, Harvey agreed to buy. But the facie did not reply for the third telegram so the contract is not completed.
1st telegram as a mere inquiry.
2nd telegram was treated as an answer to the inquiry.
3rd telegram was treated as an offer expressing the plaintiff’s willingness to purchase the estate for the price mentioned in it.
Judgment:
The court refused the claims to the plaintiff because the defendant replied for the lowest price of a bumper hall pen, but the defendant didn’t tell the answer for willingness to sell. In the third telegram, the defendant was willing to buy the bumper hall pen, but the defendant did not reply to the third telegram. So there is no binding contract between them. There is no proper acceptance of the contract. So the parties have no proper offer and acceptance, so the contract is invalid.
Leave a Reply