- Published: October 31, 2021
- Updated: October 31, 2021
- University / College: Fordham University
- Language: English
- Downloads: 43
With regard to Peter v Manufacturer, the Guarantee” of consumer goods (ACTA) will be explained. Lastly, Peter will be advised regarding this issue. 2. Peter v Salesperson Applicable Law 1: Issue This issue is whether the advertisement brochure is an invitation to treat. It is also important to note whether the exemption clause in the brochure makes the invitation to treat, permanent. Applicable Law Firstly, an invitation to treat is not an offer. It is an invitation for an offer to begin negotiations, make an offer, but does not offer a contract.
Advertisements can only be seen as an invitation to treat. In the case of Partridge v Christened (1968), the advertiser was prosecuted for illegally selling protected birds. The court held that the advertisement was only an invitation to treat. In a different context of Grainier v Cough (1896), Lord Herschel said, “The transmission of a price list does not amount to an offer to supply an unlimited quantity of the wine described at the price named” (Outfall, 2013) This ties in with the exemption clause explained below.
Hence the brochure for cameras only invites customers to make an offer by payment. This then demonstrates their intention to ay it at the term of the listed price, thus it is elevated into a contract. Business Law By quetzal 9 of the party in breach who relies on the clause for protection. Application of Facts to Law The brochure given to Peter here is only an invitation to treat for Peter to make an offer to purchase. Hence it cannot be taken as an offer. This is similar to Partridge v Christened (1968) of an invitation to treat.
Secondly, Peter later realized that there was really a shortage of supply of that camera model. Hence, it is similar to Grainier v Cough (1896) whereby Peter cannot purely rely on the brochure and hold on to the act that there will definitely be stock for the camera model he wanted. Hence, an offer is not formed. This ties in with the exemption clause. The exemption clause “WHILE STOCKS LAST” was clearly written in bold in the brochure. Hence, it is only a temporary invitation to treat. Once stocks run out, as in this case, customers should not refer to it anymore, Just as the salesperson told Peter.
Conclusion The brochure was a temporary invitation to treat as stocks ran out. Hence, the salesperson is not liable to Peter as there was no formation of an offer. Applicable Law 2: This issue is regarding contract law, which includes offer and acceptance. An offer is an intimation of willingness by an offer to enter into a legally binding contract. Once it is clearly communicated in express or implied terms to an offered, it would be binding once it is accepted. This can be communicated either verbally, in writing or by conduct.
However when a lapse of time occurs, in the case of Ramset Victoria Hotel Co v Interiors (1866) there is a termination of offer. In this case, the defendant had applied for shares in June and the plaintiff company allotted the hares to him in November. The court held that the defendant’s offer was terminated by the lapse of time and thus there was no binding contract. Acceptance occurs when there is “meeting of minds” and must be communicated to the offer either communicated verbally, in writing or in conduct.
Acceptance has to be an unconditional assent of the offer or it will result in a counter-offer. A form of acceptance can be through unconditional instantaneous communication. Willingness to enter into a contract on the term of selling the Camera at $1600. That offer was negated as he bargained for a lower price. Hence, there was no acceptance here. The salesperson then counter-offered with $1 550 but with variation to terms and told Peter not to refer to the brochure anymore. However, Peter eventually walked away.
There was a lapse of time here when Peter walks away then returns to accept the previous offer, as in the case of Ramset Victoria Hotel Co v Interiors (1866). Hence, all previous offers are invalid after Peter walks away. There is acceptance only when the salesperson offers the camera at $1700 and Peter bought the camera without hesitation, through unconditional instantaneous communication. In this case, the salesperson gave him the last offer and Peter accepts it eventually. Hence, there is offer followed by acceptance only at this point in time.
Applicable Law 3: The issue here is whether the salesperson is liable to Peter for the limited camera functions, even though Peter already communicated his purpose for usage to him. The Sale of Goods Act (SAGA) under ASS (3) Fitness for Purpose can be applied here. When a sale is done during business and the buyer makes known to the seller what he intends to use the goods for, there is an implied condition that the goods must be seasonably fit for that purpose. In the case of Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987), the buyer bought a new car which turned out to be faulty with some defects but could still be driven.
However, the court held that there was a breach of ASS (2) Satisfactory Quality, which also breached ASS (3), because the buyer must not only be able to drive the car [ASS (3)] but also be able to take pride in the car with an appropriate degree of comfort, ease of handling and reliability [ASS (2)]. Prior to the purchase, Peter already made his purpose of the camera known to the lassoers. Unfortunately after purchase, he encountered issues of limited manual settings function, similar to the case of Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987).
This makes the camera unable to be utilized comfortably and defeats the purpose of the Purchase. Therefore, the camera is not reasonably considered fit for its purpose. Provided at that point of sale; he still remembers what Peter made known to him. He may also be liable if he was aware of Pewter’s expectations but had the intention to cheat him. 3. Peter v Manufacturer Applicable Law 4: Whether the manufacturer is liable to Peter for his lower quality camera purchase under the Unfair Contract Terms Act (ACTA).
The manufacturer has no liability towards Peter in spite of the exemption clause as stated in the brochure by the camera company. ACTA, SO(3) “Guarantee” of Consumer Goods renders this exemption clause ineffective because it fails to satisfy the requirement of reasonableness. The brochure states that the camera “is of good quality as guaranteed by the manufacturer” whereas; Pewter’s camera is of a lower quality than his friend’s. However, the contract is between Peter and the salesperson. Moreover, the salesperson did not provide Peter with the functions listed down.
Hence the manufacturer may not liable as it is also unclear whether reasonableness was met in that: awareness was brought to the manufacturer on the exemption clause, it was reasonably known to them; or was in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made, between the manufacturer and the camera company. The manufacturer may not be liable to Peter because the measure of reasonableness of SO (3) is unclear and the camera company may not have fulfilled responsibility in roving the necessary documents for Peter as well.