Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Harvey Vs Facey

    Uploaded by

    godfreybernadetha
    The Harvey vs Facey case centered around whether a valid contract was formed through an exchange of telegrams between Harvey and Facey regarding the purchase of property. The Privy Council ultimately ruled that no contract existed, as Facey's responses to Harvey's inquiries did not constitute a clear offer, but rather were providing information. As there was no explicit offer capable of acceptance, no legally binding agreement between the two parties was ever established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Harvey Vs Facey

    Uploaded by

    godfreybernadetha
    14 views2 pages
    The Harvey vs Facey case centered around whether a valid contract was formed through an exchange of telegrams between Harvey and Facey regarding the purchase of property. The Privy Council ultimately ruled that no contract existed, as Facey's responses to Harvey's inquiries did not constitute a clear offer, but rather were providing information. As there was no explicit offer capable of acceptance, no legally binding agreement between the two parties was ever established.

    Original Description:

    Banking laws

    Original Title

    Harvey vs Facey

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Harvey vs Facey case centered around whether a valid contract was formed through an exchange of telegrams between Harvey and Facey regarding the purchase of property. The Privy Council ultimately ruled that no contract existed, as Facey's responses to Harvey's inquiries did not constitute a clear offer, but rather were providing information. As there was no explicit offer capable of acceptance, no legally binding agreement between the two parties was ever established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    14 views2 pages

    Harvey Vs Facey

    Uploaded by

    godfreybernadetha
    The Harvey vs Facey case centered around whether a valid contract was formed through an exchange of telegrams between Harvey and Facey regarding the purchase of property. The Privy Council ultimately ruled that no contract existed, as Facey's responses to Harvey's inquiries did not constitute a clear offer, but rather were providing information. As there was no explicit offer capable of acceptance, no legally binding agreement between the two parties was ever established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Harvey vs Facey case is one of the important case

    law in contract law as it defines the difference between an


    invitation to offer and offer and it also throws a
    light explaining completion of the offer as it plays a very
    important role in the agreement formation.

    COURT:

    Judgment of the lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the appeal
    of Harvey v Facey and others.

    From the Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica.

    BENCH:

    The Lord Chancellor, Lord Watson, Lord Hobhouse, Lord McNaughton, Lord
    Morris [Delivery of the Judgement], Lord Shand.

    FACTS OF THE CASE:

    1. Appellants, Mr. Harvey, who was running a partnership company in Jamaica,


    wanted to purchase a property owned by Mr. Facey, who was also negotiating with the
    Mayor and Council of the Kingdom of Kingston City for the same property.
    2. On October 6th, 1893 appellant sent a telegram regarding the purchase of
    property to Mr. Facey who was traveling on the train on that day as he did not want
    that the property was sold to Kingston City.
    3. Telegram said “Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash
    price-answer paid.” Replying to the question Mr. Facey said “Lowest price for
    Bumper Hall Pen£900.” Furthermore, Mr. Harvey Replied “We agree to buy
    Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of nine hundred pounds asked by you. Please send
    us your title deed in order that we may get early possession.”
    4. Mr. Facey refuses to sell the property resulting in Mr. Harvey sued him,
    claiming that the contract existed between him and stated that the telegram was an
    offer and that he has accepted it.
    5. The Petition was dismissed on the first trial by Justice Curran on the ground
    that “The agreement as alleged by the Appellant did not denote a concluded
    contract” but won the claim in the appellate court which quashed the trial court
    judgement declaring that the binding agreement had been proved. Upon taking leave
    from the appellate court, he appeals to the Queen of Council (i.e. The Privy Council).

    ISSUES FRAMED:

    1. Was there an explicit offer from Mr. Facey to Mr. Harvey for the sale of the
    said property for the consideration of £900 and is it capable of acceptance?
    2. Was there a valid contract or not?

    JUDGEMENT:

    The Privy Council held that no agreement has ever existed between the parties. The
    first conversation is only a request for information, not an offer that could be
    accepted. Therefore, the telegram sent by Mr. Facey was not credible. It was
    concluded that the telegram sent by Mr. Facey is only a piece of information. At no
    point in time, Mr. Facey made an offer that could be accepted.

    CONCLUSION:

    A valid contract requires a proposal and an acceptance to it and to make contract


    binding acceptance of the proposal must be notified to the proposer because a legally
    enforceable agreement required sureness to hold. This case clearly explains the
    differentiation between invitation to offer and offer and it also throws a light
    explaining the nature of the offer as it plays a very important role

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy