AO3- offer

• 4 issues with law on offer

  whether a display is an offer or I2T;

  whether an advert is offer or I2T;

  problems with counter offers;

  whether an offer has ended
• point 1: issue of whether something is an offer or I2T is confusing for parties
• point 1 evidence: decisions in fisher v bell and pharmaceutical society of GB v Boots have clarified the law so that items on a shelf/display are an I2T rather than an offer
• point 1 explain: customers cannot demand items on display. this is beneficial for several reasons: underage customers cannot demand illegal products (e.g alcohol/fags), customers cannot demand items that are out of stock
• point 1 counterpoint: decision in fisher v bell meant shopkeeper got away with selling flick knives as they were on display and therefore I2T, despite selling them being his clear intention. this conflicts criminal law where it is illegal to sell or possess flick knives
• point 1 develop: decisions in fisher v bell and pharmaceutical society v boots are absurd/based upon narrow interpretation of the law. law has become so technical it defies common sense
• Point 2: confusion as to whether an advert is an offer or invitation to treat
• point 2 explain: advert in partridge v crittenden was not an offer for sale despite crittenden's clear intention to sell wild birds, managed to avoid conviction for offering for sale illegal wild birds.

  However, in lefkowitz v Minneapolis surplus stores, advert for ale of three fur coats was deemed an offer for sale that the first 3 people to reply were entitled to accept. This distinction has no clear justification.
• point 2 develop: similarly, in carlill v carbolic smoke ball the advert was regarded as a valid offer. Usually if a company is making an offer to the public, someone would only be able to claim if there was misrepresentation or a breach of consumer rights act 2015. This does create inconsistency and uncertainty in the law however it is fair that a customer should be able to claim where they have gone out of their way to perform conduct relying on the promise of the company.
• point 3: difficult to distinguish between counter offers and requests for information
• point 3 evidence: Hyde v wrench, where counter offer requesting change in terms of agreement terminated the offer; and Stevenson v McLean where request for information didn't terminate offer despite the fact it would've changed the terms of the agreement. Fine line between the 2 which needs clarification
• Point 3: what is the benefit of counter offer terminating original offer?

  Allows for business agreements to go through as many offers and counter offers until both parties agree. This is recognised by the law, providing flexibility to business to negotiate and strike deals which are in the best interest of their business
• what is a counterpoint to the benefit of counter offers terminating original offers?

  Fact that conduct of offeree can be considered acceptance of a new offer, even if agreement hasn't been signed (such as in reveille v independant LLC v Anoteck international) creates danger of business accepting counter offers without realising they have, which is potentially detrimental to their business needs
• what is a further negative effect of conduct being regarded as acceptance of a counter offer?

  Could also cause problems in maintaining business relations. Law in this area needs clarity by parliament
• point 4: unclear when an offer has ended
• point 4 explain: even when offeror dies, the offer doesn't end (aslong as offeree is unaware of the death/doesn't require personal services) postal rule only applies to acceptance, not terminating an offer. This means a person could believe an offer has been terminated when it ha actually been accepted, they become subject to binding contract without realising it
• point 4 develop: although it is understandable that revocation is ineffective where offer has already been accepted (bryne v van tienhoven) however it is surprising that revocation doesn't have to come from offeror, as offeree may have relied upon offer remaining open (e.g Dickinson v Dodds) placing responsibility on offeror to revoke offer directly is not so harsh
• point 4 further develop: "reliable third party" (Dickinson v Dodds) is a vague and subjective term which may be misinterpreted and can be confusing to parties involved: offeror may argue they thought someone was reliable but offeree did not and continued to rely upon offer remaining open. This may need further clarification by parliament
• what aspect of ending an offer is actually clear?

  When offeror specifies length of time an offer is available for
• What is the issue with an offer staying open for length of time expressed by offeror?

  This doesn't happen very often
• Point 4 FFD: court has also stated that offer will end if not accepted within "reasonable time" (Ramsgate victoria hotel v Montefiore) such as 5 months in this case, however, this is also subjective as there is no clarification by courts on what is "reasonable" which can lead to argument and confusion between parties