Abigail 's Advertisement Of ' Ultimate Movie Memorabilia '
1775 Words8 Pages
whether Abigail’s advertisement of ‘Ultimate Movie Memorabilia’ was an offer to sell or an invitation to treat. In turn, a conclusion will be drawn as to whether the parties involved have made a legally binding contract with Abigail by analysing their offers.
The first issue to be addressed is whether Abigail’s advertisement for the collection was an offer or an invitation to treat; establishing this will aid our understanding of what Abigail’s position is in terms of her contractual obligation. Advertisements are mostly invitations to treat rather than an offer. The language of Abigail’s advertisement is imperative in trying to determine whether this is an invitation to treat or an offer. In the case, Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979), the council used the wording ‘might’ therefore the court held this advertisement to be an invitation to treat rather than an offer. Paradoxically, in Storer v Manchester City Council (1974) the title of the document read ‘agreement to sale’ therefore this constituted an offer. On balance, Abigail’s advertisement is more akin to that of Gibson v Manchester City Council insofar as she uses phrases such as ‘or near offer’ and ‘or, telephone me, if you prefer’.
The general assumption is that this is an advertisement to which any interested party can make an offer rather than the advertisement being a unilateral offer similar to that or Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co (1893). This is supported by the case Fisher v Bell (1961) where the