NAME : MORIAH NGOMA

SIN NUMBER : 23135275

COURSE : BUSINESS LAW

LECTURER : MR. CLEMENT NGOMA

PROGRAM : Business& Project Management

CODE : BSP 190

ASSIGNMENT : ONE(1)

DUE DATE : 31 OCTOBER , 2023

INTRODUCTION

Businesses and people use various methods of getting into a contract each day. A contract is
an agreement between two parties imposing rights and obligations which may be enforced by
law. One of the ways people get into contracts is known as an invitation to treat. Placing an
item on display in a store with a price tag attached to it. So if the customer makes the offer in
this situation, it is up to the seller to accept or reject the offer. This follows through the idea
that there is freedom to contract, and means that the seller has a right to refuse to sell an item
to a particular customer(Charman 2007, pp,7-10). This assignment will focus on Muzezo
Mojo’s position in regard to him suing Gulani Mabanzi on the grounds of breach of contract.
The point of view maintained will be that of his professional council. The transaction
occurred during the course of 6 days, each day’s happenings will be carefully followed in
order to provide the client , Muzezo Mojo, with substantial advice on the case presented.

MONDAY

A DVD player was placed for sale in a shop window with a price tag of ZMK 10,000 , by
Gulani Mabanzi. Goods displayed in a self-service shop are not an offer that is then accepted
when the customer picks the goods from the shelves, rather, they are an invitation to treat. An
invitation to the buyer to make an offer to purchase (Turner 2014, p,16 ).

The case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist

(1953) helps to better understand this principle. In Boots self-service store, products (and
others) were displayed on shelves, from which customers removed them, taking them to a
cash desk for purchase. There was a registered pharmacist standing by the cash desk. The
PSGB alleged that these procedures infringed the Pharmacy and Poisons Act. The Court of
Appeal held that the setting of goods upon shelves was merely an invitation to treat and that
the actual sale took place when the customer offered payment at the cash desk and was under
the supervision of the pharmacist. Point of Law was goods displayed on shelves are not offers
but rather are invitations to the customer to make an offer to the shop assistant or
shopkeeper (Turner 2014, p,16 ).
TUESDAY

After getting attracted to the DVD being advertised by Gunali Mabanzi , Muzezo Mojo
requested for more information. A mere request for information is not a counter offer. If the
offeree asks the offeror for more information, the original offer stands and the offeree has
neither accepted or rejected the offer(LawTeacher, 2018).

The case of Fisher v Bell (1960) A shopkeeper had a flick knife on display in his shop
window, with a price tag on it. He was charged with the offense of offering for sale an
offensive weapon, but was acquitted as, in fact, he had merely invited offers. Point of Law
was an item displayed in a shop window is not an offer to sell but an invitation to
treat(Keenan 2009,p,206).

WEDNESDAY

A counter-offer must not be confused with a request for information. Such a request
does not end the offer, which can still be accepted after the new information has
been elicited. In the case of Stevenson v McLean (1880), where it was held that a
request by the offeree as to the length of time that the offeror would give for
payment did not terminate the original offer, which he was entitled to accept prior to
revocation(Kelly 2002,p,115). Where as in this case the offeror Muzezo Mojo is asking the
offeree Gulani Mabanzi , if he could purchase the item in installments of ZMK5000 over a
space of two(2) months.

THURSDAY

Muzezo Mojo writes a letter making an offer of 10 000 to Gulani Mabanzi. However, this
letter did not reach Gulani Mabanzi at all and because he did not know about the letter he
decided to sell his DVD player to DJ Sokoneza for ZMK 14,000. (Kelly 2002, p,119) helps
us understand that the general rule is that acceptance must be communicated to the
offeror. As a consequence of this rule, silence cannot amount to acceptance. The
classic case in this regard is Felthouse v Bindley (1862), where an uncle had been
negotiating the purchase of his nephew’s horse. He eventually wrote to the nephew,
offering to buy it at a particular price, stating: ‘If I hear no more about him I shall
consider the horse mine’; the nephew made no reply. When the horse was mistakenly
sold by an auctioneer, the uncle sued the auctioneer in conversion. It was held that
the uncle had no cause of action, as the horse did not belong to him. Acceptance
could not be imposed on the offeree on the basis of his silence.

FRIDAY

Muzezo Mojo telephones Gulani Mabanzi to ask when he can collect his DVD player. Gulani
tells Muzezo that the player has already been sold to someone else at ZMK 14,000.

SATURDAY

On this day it was later discovered that Muzezo Mojo had made Gulani Mabanzi a counter
offer of ZMK8000.( Keenan 2009, p,209) best explains this principle ,an offer is rejected if
the offeree notifies the offeror that he does not wish to accept the offer. The case in regard to
this is the one of Hyde V Wrench (1840) where Wrench offered to sell his farm to Hyde
for £1,000. Hyde replied with a ‘counter-offer’ of £950, which was refused. Hyde then said
that he was prepared to meet the original offer of £1,000. It was held that no contract had
been formed. The ‘counter-offer’ of £950 had the effect of rejecting Wrench’s original offer.

LEGAL CONSULTATION

Muzezo Mojo claims that Gulani Mabanzi breached their contract. At the beginning of the
transaction Muzezo Mojo noticed a DVD player on display with a price tag and approached
Gulani Mabanzi to ask for more information about his product, this action was not any
indication that an offer was made. (Keenan 2009,p,206) It must be noted that the display of
goods with a price ticket attached in a shop window or on a supermarket shelf is not an offer
to sell but an invitation for customers to make an offer to buy. Later on when Mr Mojo wrote
a letter making an offer but Gulani did not receive any letter and decided to accept another
persons offer instead.
(Keenan 2009,p,212)An acceptance may take any form. It can be given orally or in writing
but silence cannot amount to an acceptance. The two parties Muzezo and Gulani, did not
reach a consensus ad idem , therefore for a contract was not formed.

CONCLUSION

Contract formation is done in the order of offer, acceptance and then to agreement. Only then
does an interaction qualify as a contract. Mr Muzezo Mojo is suing Mr Gulani Mabanzi on
the grounds of breach of contract. No offer was made from Mr Muzezo in good time and no
acceptance was given due to that fact. The author would advise that if Mr Muzezo goes on
with this case he has a very low chance of winning because the facts are that for there to be a
breach of contract there needs to be contract to begin with , given his position as well as the
various legal components that transpired , no contract was made between the two parties.
REFERENCES
CASES
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist (1953) 1 All ER 482

Fisher v Bell (1960) 3 WLR 919

Stevenson v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346

Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 6 LT 157

Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132

BOOKS
Charman. M, (2007), Contract Law , Fourth Edition, Willan Publishing c/o ISBS, 920
NE 58th Ave, Suite 300, Portland, Oregon 97213-3786, USA.

Turner. C, (2014), Unlocking Contract Law, Fourth Edition, Routledge 2 Park Square,
Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN.

Keenan. M, et Al, (2009), Business Law, Ninth Edition, Pearson Education Limited,
Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE England.

Kelly. D, et Al, (2002), Business Law, Fourth Edition, Cavendish Publishing

Limited, The Glass House, Wharton Street, London WC1X 9PX, United
Kingdom.

ONLINE SOURCES
Law Teacher, (2018),Formation of Contract Acceptance, https://www.lawteacher.com