Contract law case study

1/2 This is invitation to treat and not offer. Advertising is normally be treated as invitation to treat because it is unlikely that the advertiser intend to be legally bound. (Partridge v Crittenden 1968)

8/2 B called A suggested for USD900K is an offer. While A rejected the offer. The last sentence is not releveant. (Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots 1953)

10/2 C intended to use USD1M to buy and A accepted. So USD1M is the consideration.

12/2 This is not relevant

熊仔：
首先A在1/2登廣告叫價US$1.2 M-------這是offer
B在2/8 致電A還價US$900,000---------這是B提出的counter offer而A對B的還價提議只表示了若15/2無人還US$1M買畫的話, 才會' 考慮 ' B ' 的提議,

在這關節要搞清楚A 已拒絕(repudiated)了B 的counter offer. 而 B 亦沒有給A
任何東西或金錢 作為A暫時不會接洽其他買家的consideration.所以到現時為止相方也對對方沒有任何法律責任。根本沒有合約存在, 何來合約條欵須要遵守呢?還有一點要注意的就是就算A 以US$10將畫售與任何人或過了15/2無人問津時B出任何要價他也有權不賣,B亦無從干涉,因為A 只說過到時會'考慮',而考慮的結果就是不賣給B, 不需任何理由,simply because he is not legally
bound in any way.

在10/2, A 將畫以US$1M 賣了給 C, a contract of sale has then been come into between two contractual parties, namely A and C.無論是 A offered C
accepted the offer 或是vice versa, C提出(offered) A接受(accepted) 於是
offer + acceptance = contract 買賣合約就完成了。A與C的交易細節並未提及, 亦與AB的爭拗無關, 所以可以就此畧過。

以後B做什麽也不可以禁止A賣畫給C或C購買A的畫, 因為他和A從來也未有過合約, 那他那有權干涉別人的自由買賣呢? Furthermore, in so far as this
case is concerned, issue of intention does not exist.

這種合同糾紛,是最基本的合約法律知識,任何讀法律大學第一年拿著Cheshire
and Fifoot 作的 The Law of Contract上第一堂合同法就是讀offer and acceptance 了, 所有合約精神也基於這些原則, 所有合同的案件也夲著這些基本原則來作出栽判的,所以我不知應從千萬件case中選那一件給你參考, 說到這裏, 就cite我在一九六七年在英國上合同法第一堂讀的Boots v British
Pharmaciatical Socity(這是在Cheshire & Fifoot 書中對該案的簡寫),你大可從中學到很多合同法的常識也。