The case of Harvey v Facey established that

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

In Harvey v Facey the Privy Council held that a bare statement of price or other factual information does not, by itself, constitute a binding offer to contract.

Relevant knowledge points and concepts:
- Offer vs. invitation to treat: an offer is a definite promise capable of acceptance; an invitation to treat or mere information invites negotiation or provides facts.
- Objective test: courts ask whether a reasonable person would interpret the communication as an offer capable of acceptance.
- Case facts (concise): Harvey telegraphed Facey asking if he would sell Bumper Hall Pen and “telegraph lowest cash price.” Facey replied “Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen £900.” Harvey then purported to accept. The court examined whether Facey’s telegram was an offer.

Step-by-step reasoning:
1. Identify the communication to be analyzed: Facey’s statement “Lowest price ... £900.”
2. Apply the objective test: Would a reasonable person reading Facey’s reply conclude it was a firm offer ready to be accepted? The answer was no — the wording was informational.
3. Distinguish legal categories: The reply conveyed factual information about price rather than an intention to be bound immediately; it left open terms (no explicit offer to sell).
4. Legal conclusion: No offer existed, so there could be no acceptance and no contract.

Why the correct answer is correct:
Option (a) precisely captures the holding: merely providing factual information (here, a stated “lowest price”) does not amount to an offer. The court treated Facey’s telegram as supplying information, not making a commitment.

Why the other options are incorrect:
- (b) While intention can matter, Harvey v Facey is not principally about mutual intention to contract; it focused on whether an offer was made.
- (c) The objective test exists, but the case’s finding was more specific: the statement was factual information, not an offer — so it does not support the general proposition that a reasonable person must conclude an offer was made.
- (d) Tautological and not the issue decided; the case turned on whether any offer was made, not the identity of the offeror.

Conclusion: The correct answer is (a). This matches the provided answer.

The case of Harvey v Facey established that单项选择题

类似问题

The advertisement in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co was a

Which case established the rule that once an offer is countered, it can no longer be accepted?

The legal principle which arises in the case of Hyde v Wrench focus primarily on:

The case of Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl concluded that

For acceptance to be valid, it must

Which of the following statements is always TRUE?

Anne found the home of her dreams on Friday and made an offer on it that day. The seller of the home accepted her offer on Tuesday. Choose the most correct statement:

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单