Harvey vs Facey case is one of the important case

law in contract law as it defines the difference between an

invitation to offer and offer and it also throws a
light explaining completion of the offer as it plays a very
important role in the agreement formation.

COURT:

Judgment of the lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the appeal
of Harvey v Facey and others.

From the Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica.

BENCH:

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Watson, Lord Hobhouse, Lord McNaughton, Lord
Morris [Delivery of the Judgement], Lord Shand.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Appellants, Mr. Harvey, who was running a partnership company in Jamaica,

wanted to purchase a property owned by Mr. Facey, who was also negotiating with the
Mayor and Council of the Kingdom of Kingston City for the same property.
2. On October 6th, 1893 appellant sent a telegram regarding the purchase of
property to Mr. Facey who was traveling on the train on that day as he did not want
that the property was sold to Kingston City.
3. Telegram said “Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash
price-answer paid.” Replying to the question Mr. Facey said “Lowest price for
Bumper Hall Pen£900.” Furthermore, Mr. Harvey Replied “We agree to buy
Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of nine hundred pounds asked by you. Please send
us your title deed in order that we may get early possession.”
4. Mr. Facey refuses to sell the property resulting in Mr. Harvey sued him,
claiming that the contract existed between him and stated that the telegram was an
offer and that he has accepted it.
5. The Petition was dismissed on the first trial by Justice Curran on the ground
that “The agreement as alleged by the Appellant did not denote a concluded
contract” but won the claim in the appellate court which quashed the trial court
judgement declaring that the binding agreement had been proved. Upon taking leave
from the appellate court, he appeals to the Queen of Council (i.e. The Privy Council).

ISSUES FRAMED:

1. Was there an explicit offer from Mr. Facey to Mr. Harvey for the sale of the
said property for the consideration of £900 and is it capable of acceptance?
2. Was there a valid contract or not?

JUDGEMENT:

The Privy Council held that no agreement has ever existed between the parties. The
first conversation is only a request for information, not an offer that could be
accepted. Therefore, the telegram sent by Mr. Facey was not credible. It was
concluded that the telegram sent by Mr. Facey is only a piece of information. At no
point in time, Mr. Facey made an offer that could be accepted.

CONCLUSION:

A valid contract requires a proposal and an acceptance to it and to make contract

binding acceptance of the proposal must be notified to the proposer because a legally
enforceable agreement required sureness to hold. This case clearly explains the
differentiation between invitation to offer and offer and it also throws a light
explaining the nature of the offer as it plays a very important role