Give a brief account of the famous case –Harvey Vs Facey.

Facts: Facey (D) was in negotiations with the Mayor and Council of Kingston regarding the sale of his store. Harvey (P) sent Facey a telegram stating: “Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price-answer paid.” On the same day, Facey sent Harvey a reply by telegram stating: “Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen £900.” Harvey sent Facey another telegram agreeing to purchase the property at the asking price. D refused to sell and P sued for specific performance and an injunction to prevent Kingston from taking the property. The trial court dismissed on the grounds that an enforceable contract had not been formed and P appealed. The Supreme Court of Jamaica reversed and D appealed. Issue: Is a statement of the minimum price at which a seller would sell an offer? Holding and Rule: No. A mere statement of the minimum selling price is an invitation to treat and not an offer to sell. The court held that by replying to P’s question regarding the lowest price of the property, D did not make an affirmative answer to the first question regarding his willingness to sell. The court held that D had made an invitation to trade and not an offer. read less

Facts: Facey (D) was in negotiations with the Mayor and Council of Kingston regarding the sale of his store. Harvey (P) sent Facey a telegram stating: “Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price-answer paid.” On the same day, Facey sent Harvey a reply by telegram stating: “Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen £900.” Harvey sent Facey another telegram agreeing to purchase the property at the asking price. D refused to sell and P sued for specific performance and an injunction to prevent Kingston from taking the property. The trial court dismissed on the grounds that an enforceable contract had not been formed and P appealed. The Supreme Court of Jamaica reversed and D appealed. Issue: Is a statement of the minimum price at which a seller would sell an offer? Holding and Rule: No. A mere statement of the minimum selling price is an invitation to treat and not an offer to sell. The court held that by replying to P’s question regarding the lowest price of the property, D did not make an affirmative answer to the first question regarding his willingness to sell. The court held that D had made an invitation to trade and not an offer. Disposition: Reversed, judgment of trial court restored. read less

acts: Facey (D) was in negotiations with the Mayor and Council of Kingston regarding the sale of his store. Harvey (P) sent Facey a telegram stating: “Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price-answer paid.” On the same day, Facey sent Harvey a reply by telegram stating: “Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen £900.” Harvey sent Facey another telegram agreeing to purchase the property at the asking price. D refused to sell and P sued for specific performance and an injunction to prevent Kingston from taking the property. The trial court dismissed on the grounds that an enforceable contract had not been formed and P appealed. The Supreme Court of Jamaica reversed and D appealed. Issue: Is a statement of the minimum price at which a seller would sell an offer? Holding and Rule: No. A mere statement of the minimum selling price is an invitation to treat and not an offer to sell. The court held that by replying to P’s question regarding the lowest price of the property, D did not make an affirmative answer to the first question regarding his willingness to sell. The court held that D had made an invitation to trade and not an offer. Disposition: Reversed, judgment of trial court restored. read less

Facts – Letters were written back and forth 1.Harvey – Will you sell us bumper hall pen? Telegraph lowest price -answer paid. 2.Facey – Lowest price for bumper hall is $900. 3.Harvey – We agree to buy bumper hall for the sum of $900 asked by you. 4.Harvey sued for specific performance of this agreement and for an injunction to restrain the town of Kingston from taking conveyance of the property (Facey was previously engaged in negotiations to sell the land to Kingston) Procedural History •Trial court dismissed the action on the ground that the agreement did not disclose a concluded contract •Appealed by plaintiffs, Supreme court of Jamaica reversed the decision •Defendant’s appealed to the judicial committee of privy council Issue •Was there an explicit offer from Facey to sell the land for $900 to Harvey? Holding •No, there was not. Rule •An offer CAN NOT be implied by writing. It can only be concrete and sound…The appellants can’t imply that Facey made an offer when he, as a matter of fact, did not make an offer. Reasoning •(from Harvey) 1st question was willingness to sell, 2nd question asks the lowest price. •Facey only replied to the second question in regards to the price. •Harvey treated his response as an unconditional off to sell them the price named…Only binding aspect is the lowest price in regards to a contract being formed. •Agreement could have ONLY been legit if Facey responded to the third telegram from Harvey. Disposition •Reversed, judgment to the trial court in favor of Harvey is restored. Notes •Once again look at the specific language in the contract. read less