Court: Queen’s Bench Division
Judgment: 5 April 1968
Where Reported: [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1204; [1968] 2 All E.R. 421; [1968] 4 WLUK 32
Legal Issue in Partridge v Crittenden
Partridge v Crittenden is a notable case in contract law that deals with the issue of an invitation to treat versus an offer.
The central legal issue before the court was whether an advertisement constituted an offer or an invitation to treat.
Material Facts in Partridge v Crittenden
The case involved Mr. Partridge, who placed an advertisement in a magazine offering “Bramblefinch cocks and hens, 25 shillings each.” The advertisement did not specify the quantity available.
Mr. Crittenden responded to the advertisement and sent a letter requesting two Bramblefinch cocks. However, Mr. Partridge refused to sell the birds at the advertised price, claiming that the advertisement was an invitation to treat and not an offer.
Judgment in Partridge v Crittenden
Partridge v Crittenden was heard in the Divisional Court, and the court held that the advertisement was an invitation to treat and not an offer. Therefore, Mr. Partridge was not bound to sell the birds at the advertised price.
The Reason for the Decision in Partridge v Crittenden
The court based its decision in Partridge v Crittenden on the distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat.
Lord Parker, delivering the leading judgment, emphasised that an offer is a definite expression of willingness to be bound by specific terms, while an invitation to treat is an invitation to others to make an offer.
The court considered the nature of advertisements and their role in commercial contracts.
It noted that advertisements are generally considered invitations to treat, as they are typically an invitation for customers to make an offer to purchase the advertised goods or services.
The court also examined the language used in the advertisement. It noted that the advertisement did not specify the quantity of birds available and did not indicate an intention to be bound by any offer. Therefore, it was more consistent with an invitation to treat rather than an offer.
The court rejected the argument that the advertisement constituted an offer because it contained specific terms, such as the price.
It stated that the inclusion of specific terms in an advertisement does not automatically transform it into an offer. Instead, the court emphasised that the intention of the party making the advertisement must be considered.
Conclusion
The judgment in Partridge v Crittenden established the principle that an advertisement is generally considered an invitation to treat rather than an offer.
The court held that Mr. Partridge’s advertisement for Bramblefinch birds was an invitation to treat, and therefore, he was not bound to sell the birds at the advertised price.
The case highlights the importance of distinguishing between an offer and an invitation to treat in contract law.
It emphasises that advertisements are typically invitations to treat, as they invite customers to make an offer to purchase the advertised goods or services.
However, it is important to note that there are exceptions to this general rule. In certain circumstances, an advertisement can be considered an offer if it contains clear and specific terms that indicate an intention to be bound by any acceptance.
Overall, the judgment in Partridge v Crittenden has had a significant impact on the understanding and application of invitations to treat in contract law.
It has provided clarity and guidance in determining the legal status of advertisements and has contributed to the development of a robust and fair contractual framework.
