DYERS v BURTON

Offer v Invitation to Treat is demonstrated

-invitation to treat lacks certainty

-When assessing offer v invite to treat, we judge intention.

Intention here is evaluated objectively. Objective intention is

assessed, not subjective. The test is what can be reasonably said to

be the intention based on the context. Thus, problematic and murky.

(This is why lawyers like to settle since the court is unpredictable and

the outcome uncertain.)

June 6: invitation to treat. May be argued to be an offer, but looks like

an invitation to treat.

Oct. 16: plaintiff here asks for a lower price, which in effect is

rejecting the defendant's offer (to the extent that it is an offer). No

counter-offer is given.

Oct. 21: Is this a renewal of the offer? If it is, it is open to be

accepted. Plaintiff takes it as such and sends $500 (Oct.21).

Nov.5: Defendant returns the deposit and cancels the deal. Why?

(look at motivation to help solve questions of offer or not etc. Likely

defendant got a better offer and so want to cancel this offer. In 2013

this offer would likely not be accepted as a contract on the grounds of

uncertainty. Not enough detail to be considered a true contract.

The case here turns on the Oct.21 letter, and whether that was an

offer or just an invitation to treat. Again, the test is what was the

intention of the defendant.

Harvey v Facey (p.18; precedent for Dyers case): O'Bryne thinks,

contrary to court ruling, an offer was given, not merely an offer of

treat. By stating his price, the defendant implicitly answered the first

question as to whether he wanted to sell. The judge in Dyers treats

Harvey v Facey as merely establishing what the court already knew,

that a mere statement of the lowest price does not necessarily

establish it as an on offer to sell, and thus not very determinative of

settling the issue in this case.

Judge the legal quality of an offer only by the intention at the time the

offer was made.

To judge the intention of a proposed offer, the court can only consider

the actions and words of parties at the moment the offer is made.

Can't look at subsequent actions/words, for that would create the

mischief that a party by its subsequent conduct could alter the legal

quality of the act at the time it was performed.

-if it helps your case, as a lawyer you may want to bring up the

conduct of your client of the opponent to prove a given issue was or

was not what you are trying to prove, but as a matter of law it

technically isn't supposed to be considered. There is some wavering

on this principle, but the correct view is that subsequent conduct is

not relevant.

Subsequent actions/words etc cannot be used to determine the legal

quality of an action done at its specific time and place, for that would

make it possible to allow for mischief.