Features of contract law - Coursework Example

An invitation to treat is an expression of willingness to enter into negotiations that may in future materialize in a contract. Therefore, an invitation to treat is the preliminary step that precedes a contract, and that may or may not turn into a contract. The case of Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979) is illustrative in this regard. As the distinction have now become clear between an offer and invitation to treat – the question whether the advertisement in the newspaper placed by Ahmed amounts to an offer or an invitation to treat.

According to the rule contained in Pattridge v Crittenden (1968) an advertisement does not amount to an offer, instead it is an invitation to treat. However, an exception to this rule is contained in Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball that advertisements could, in certain situation, turn into an offer themselves and would just beckon an expression of acceptance to seal the contract. Ahmed’s advertisement in this situation amounts to a unilateral offer – an offer that only requires acceptance. Evidence of this found in the words ‘acceptance to be confirmed by 22nd July’. . A conclusion can be drawn from this case that postal rule, an antiquated rule indeed, is only applicable to non-instantaneous forms of communication.

Therefore, by analogy it could be held that postal rule will not apply to emails, which is virtually instantaneous will not governed by this rule. Lord Denning further held in this case that acceptance by telex machine took place where it was received, rather than where it was sent. This approach has been confirmed by the House of Lords in The Brimmes (1975) and Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl (1983). However, these two cases particularly deal with the issue of time of acceptance. In The Brimnes (1975) the issue was whether a withdrawal of the contract was effective when it was received or when it was actually read.

Megaw LJ unequivocally held that acceptance is effective and valid when it is expected to be read not when it is actually read. Which in turn means that acceptance would be valid when it is received not when the recipient, through some fault of his own, failed to read it on time when it was expected to read. Megaw LJ put the judgment in the following words:  “if a notice arrives at the address of the person be notified, at such a time and by such a means of communication that it would in the normal course of business come to the attention of that person on its arrival, that person cannot rely on some failure of himself or his servants to act in a normal businesslike manner in respect of taking cognisance of the communication”.

However, in the present situation the acceptance by email has been received at Ahmed’s PC at 5:39pm and that is beyond office hours. It cannot be expected to have been read by Ahmed beyond office hours, but it could be argued that the