Offer & Acceptance Tutorial Question

The first issue which must be discussed in this factual scenario is whether the advertisement
amounted to an offer or an invitation to treat? The rule of law upon which this matter is
derived from is the seminal case of Partridge v Crittenden which contends that
advertisements placed in newspapers are generally considered to be mere invitations to treat.
However, there is an exception to this rule enunciated in the case of Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke Ball Co. which propounds that when there is a high level of specificity in an
advertisement it is elevated from being an invitation to treat to being an offer. In Carlill v
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. the defendants placed an ad in the newspaper to sell their smoke
balls which assisted the infirm in fighting the influenza. In the advertisement, the Smoke Ball
Company clearly stated the instructions of usage of the product and the fact that if anyone
took the product and did not get cured they would be paid a certain reward deposited in a
bank. The Law Lords held in that case that because of the great deal of specificity in the
advertisement, it could no longer be treated as a mere invitation to treat but as an offer to
purchase the product. The facts of that case is analogous to the instant matter because , like
the advertisement in Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, the one in this matter was sufficiently detailed.
It not only gave an affirmative price but it also specified the duration of the offer - two weeks
- and to whom the offer would be made to - anyone who came first - which one can infer
would be sufficiently detailed to elevate the ad to a position of an offer. In the same vein, one
can compare the case of Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores to the present
factual matrix because in the American case the defendants placed advertisements in a
newspaper which not only spoke about the product being offered - coats, pens etc - but also
gave the prices for the items and to whom the offer would be made to - anyone who came
first. The court held that in that case the advertisement constituted an offer and not an
invitation to treat because of the high level of specificity in the ads themselves. The ad in
Lefkowitz is very similar to that of the ad in this matter in that they both essentially contain
the same details therefore it is submitted that the courts would come to the same conclusion
in this matter. However, to cement this assertion one can distinguish the facts of the seminal
case of Partridge v Crittenden which deals with invitations to treat. In that case, the
defendant advertised in a newspaper 'cocks and hens 25 shillings each' and on appeal the
House of Lords held that the ad was not specific enough in its terms which caused it to
remain an invitation to treat and not an offer. Thus, Partridge may be distinguished from
the instant matter on the ground that it was not specific enough in its terms to constitute an
offer. Based on the discussion above, one can therefore posit that the advertisement in the
newspaper constituted an offer and not an invitation to treat because of the great degree of
specificity of terms.

The second issue which must be addressed is whether there was valid acceptance made by
Brad in response to Alanś offer? Authority for this point of law is derived from the case of
Hyde v Wrench which affirms that where acceptance of an offer is qualified in that it does
not accept all the terms and conditions but proposes new conditions then that would be
considered a counter-offer and so would destroy the original offer so that it may no longer
be accepted.