판결 이유
An advertisement in a periodical stating a price for goods is an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale, unless the language clearly indicates otherwise.
사실관계
Partridge placed an advertisement in a magazine reading 'Bramblefinch cocks, bramblefinch hens, 25s each'. He was charged with unlawfully 'offering for sale' a wild bird contrary to the Protection of Birds Act 1954.
판결 요약
The Divisional Court quashed Partridge's conviction, holding that his advertisement 'Bramblefinch cocks, bramblefinch hens, 25s each' was an invitation to treat and not an 'offer for sale' within the meaning of the Protection of Birds Act 1954. Lord Parker CJ, applying the reasoning in Fisher v Bell, held that as a general rule advertisements of goods for sale in a newspaper or magazine are to be construed as invitations to treat rather than offers, because the contrary would produce an unworkable result — a seller advertising limited stock could otherwise be exposed to contractual liability to every reader who purported to accept. Since Partridge had only invited offers and had not himself made an 'offer for sale', the specific statutory offence charged was not made out. Ashworth J agreed, though the court observed that the result might have been different had Partridge instead been charged with 'selling' the bird.
주요 인용문
"I think that when one is dealing with advertisements and circulars, unless they indeed come from manufacturers, there is business sense in their being construed as invitations to treat and not offers for sale."
— Lord Parker CJ
후속 처리
Consistently cited authority on advertisements as invitations to treat.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Get Professional Help