Harvey v Facey

The case of Harvey v Facey1 is about sale of a property called Bumper Hall Pen. The prospective
buyer hereby called plaintiff (Harvey), sent a telegram to the seller hereby called defendant (Facey)
querying Will you trade us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph minimum cash price. Facey replied by
telegram Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen 900. Harvey after that come back with a telegram
contained We grant to purchase Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of 900 quoted by you. Please
forward us your title deed in order that we can make early possession. but there are no response for
the received telegram. Later, Harvey brought an action to enforce the contract. The court held a
contract for the sale of the property could only have been concluded if Facey had accepted Harveys
final telegram. Facey had not said that he would sell the property and had merely stated the
minimum price he was willing to sell at. Harvey could not imply Faceys telegram was an offer to
sell as this must be expressly given.2 In this case there was no legal contract occurred between those
two parties (Harvey and Facey). This is because the seller hereby called defendant, Facey had no
directly answered the first question asked by the plantiff, Harvey. Whether Facey agree to sell and
the minimum price stated was merely supplying information base on requested by Harvey. The
supplying information was not considered as offer.

Analysis
In this generally, one party supply information to another party. The person provides the
information to acquaint the other party. The statement is not expected to be acted consequent to it.
The supplying information was not considered as offer. In this case, there was no clear evidence
shows an intention that the telegram sent by Defendant, Facey was to be an offer. An offer is an
action of willingness to make a contract with the intention that it shall become binding on the
offeror as soon as it is accepted by the offeree. But in this case the Defendant (Facey) had no
intention to make a contract, the replied he sent to plaintiff is just a information and no legal effect
on it. In opinion, all agreement and contract must refer to Contract Act. As for Malaysia, Malaysia
practiced Contract Act 1956. The reason why all agreement and contract must follow the Contract
Act is because all parties should bound to it and to make a fair judgement in favor of either party
based on the Contract Act. It is necessary to look into the structure of the offer and acceptance
rather than the parties conduct as a whole. In this case, the information supplied by the Defendant
should not considered as a offer if we refer to the parties conduct it will be unfair judgement. A
1 Harvey v Facey [1893] UKPC 1, [1893] AC 552
2 Supply Management, ' Classic court report : Harvey v Facey [1893], accessed 8th October 2012

request for information must be discerned from a contractual offer. Supply of information was
define as a act of communication which a person provide the fact to other person. For example,
Company A carrying on the business of medical supplement and Company B was a Pharmacy. Both
company entered into a business relationship regarding to purchase some medical items from
Company A by Company B. Before purchasing the items, Company B decided to request quotation
followed by Company A summit quotation as per requested. After few Company B sued Company
A for delaying the said items. The quotation acted as a information and it was not considered as
offer. Refer to the parties conduct, Company A have no knowledge about the order and as for
Company B considered the quotation was a offer. In such case, the necessary to refer the structure
offer and acceptance play the important role and the root of the judgement. The meaning of an offer
which occurred the similar situation is explained in the case of Preston Corpn Sdn Bhd v Edward
Leong.3 It's necessary to understand if a person have a contract than anything went wrong with the
goods or services provided, because of the influence what options the person have to set the
problem out. For a consumer contract to be valid, there are some conditions have to be followed.
There must be an offer, consideration and acceptance. Both parties must have a intend to make a
legal binding contract. Overall, the judgement for the case of Harvey v Facey was considered as a
logic and contract rule based judgement. The judgement had followed the rule of contract an the
judgement rises a justice which was not in favor of any parties but by the contract law either one
party were held as innocent.

3 Preston Corporation Sdn Bhd v Edward Leong [1982] 2 MLJ 22