HARVEY vs. FACEY CASE 1893: FACTS, ISSUES, JUDGEMENTS & ANALYSIS

Author: Shruti Jain, Teerthanker Mahaveer University

Harvey vs Facey case is one of the important case law in contract law as it defines the difference between an invitation to offer and offer and it also throws a light explaining completion of the offer as it plays a very important role in the agreement formation.

SECTIONS RELATED TO THE CASE:
THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
1. Section 2 (a)
When one person signifies to another his amenability to do or to vacillate from doing anything, with view to carrying the assent of that other to analogous act or abstinence, he is said to make an offer. Hence, offer is synonymous to offer.
2. Section 2 (b)
When the person to whom the offer has been made signifies his assent thereto, the offer is said to be accepted.  thus, the offer when accepted becomes a pledge.
3. Once the acceptance is communicated it ca n’t be abandoned or withdrawn.
4. An engagement to treat (offer)
An engagement to treat is a generality in contract law. It refers to an engagement for a party to make an offer enter into contractual lodgment.


DATA OF THE CASE:
1. The data of Harvey vs Facey are straightforward yet raise complex legal issues.
2. The pleaders, Mr. Harvey and his mates, were conducting a cooperation business in Kingston, Jamaica. They were interested in copping
a piece of land called Bumper Hall Pen, which was  held by Mr. Facey, the replier.
3. At the time, Facey was also negotiating the implicit trade of the same property to the Mayor and Council of Kingston
4. On October 6th, 1893 plaintiff transferred a telegram regarding the purchase of property to Mr. Facey who was traveling on the train on that day as he did n’t want that the property was  sold to Kingston City.
5. Telegram said “ Will you  sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph  lowest cash price- answer paid. ” Replying to the question Mr. Facey said “  lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen£ 900. ” likewise, Mr. Harvey Replied “ We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of nine hundred pounds asked by you. Please shoot us your title deed in order that we may get early possession. ”
6. still, Facey refused to  sell the property to Harvey.
7. Mr. Facey refuses to  sell the property which reacted in suing of him by Mr. Harvey, claiming that the contract was between him and stated that the telegram was an offer and that he has accepted it.
8. The  supplication was firstly dismissed on the first trial by Lord Curren on the ground that the alleged agreement does n’t act a concluded contract.
9. demoralized by this, Mr Harvey went to the Appellate Court where the actuality of the contract was proved and with the leave of the Appellate Court, he appealed to the Privy Council.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:
1. Was Facey’s reply an offer or an  engagement to treat?
* Harvey argued that stating the”  lowest price” constituted an offer.
* Facey contended it was simply a statement of price, not an offer to vend.
2. Was there a list contract formed?
* For a contract to be valid, there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to produce legal relations.






JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE:
The Privy Council, at the time the  topmost court of appeal for colonies like Jamaica, heard an appeal of the case. The Privy Council upheld the trial court’s first ruling that there was no contract between the parties. The Privy Council decided that Facey’s statement was only a response to Harvey’s question and not an offer.  therefore, a contract was n’t formed when Harvey  subsequently agreed to the price. In his ruling, Lord Morris emphasized that Facey’s response was n’t an offer to  sell the property, but rather simply a statement of the  lowest amount he would entertain. Harvey’s original telegram posed two different questions, the court noted was Facey willing to  sell, and what was the  lowest price he would accept? Only the alternate issue was addressed in Facey’s response; his amenability to vend, which is essential to creating a fairly binding offer, was left out.


  ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT:
To put it simply, this decision determined that the absence of a suitable offer or  legit offer  prevented the conformation of any fairly binding contract. This  fluently brings up the idea of a valid offer in agreement with Section 2( a) of the Indian Contract Act of 1872, which states that the preceding conditions must be met in order for an offer to be considered valid.The offer must make it clear that the offeror intends to be bound by it; in other words, it must indicate to the offeree that he is willing to do commodity or chorus from doing commodity. Because he knows Z is n’t serious, Y responds,” I accept Z’s offer does n’t constitute an offer,” after X makes a unconcerned offer of Rs. 50 for his typewriter.

1. The offer must be made with the intention of getting the offeree’s concurrence to the act or abstaining.
2. The offer needs to be specific,  unambiguous, and palpable.
3. The acceptor( offeree) must be  rightly informed of the offer.
4. It needs to be made with the thing of establishing a legal connection.

Therefore, for an offer to be supposed  legit , all of these conditions must be met. And in this case, the property’s  owners are entitled to everything, including the capability to  sell the property. still, the plaintiff  erroneously believed that the canvasser  would quote the  lowest price when he inquired and offered to  sell the property because the canvasser  didn’t give an offer to vend.


CONCLUSION


A statement of the  lowest price is simply a response to an information request and is n’t an offer, according to the Privy Council’s judgment. This decision has had an extended impact on contract law and is still brought up in  exchanges about how contracts are formed and how  lodgment  should be interpreted. The court’s decision emphasizes how  vital intent, offer, and acceptance are to creating a fairly enforceable agreement. It acts as a  keepsake that in order for there to be a contract, there must be a establishment offer and unwavering acceptance, as well as a clear and collaborative knowledge of the conditions.





FAQS


Q. What is the difference between an offer and an invitation to treat?
– An ‘offer’ is a definite proposal made with the intention to be bound once it is accepted.
– An ‘invitation to treat’ is merely an invitation for others to make offers or negotiate.

Q. How does this case apply to Indian Contract Law?
– Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872:
Section 2(a): Defines a proposal (offer) as the willingness to do or abstain from doing anything with a view to obtaining the assent of another.
Section 2(b): States that a proposal becomes a promise when accepted.

REFERENCE


The Indian Contract Act, 1872
https://indiankanoon.org

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *