Week 2:3 - The Context and the Intention of the Offer

Summary

In this video, Craig Newbery-Jones explains the intricacies of offers and invitations to treat, emphasizing the need to distinguish between them by examining the intention behind the offer. The video explores how the objective approach is used by courts to assess intention, using cases like Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking and Chapleton v Barry UDC as examples. The key takeaway is that not all displays (like goods on a shelf) are simply invitations to treat; some can be offers if the intention suggests so.

Highlights

• The difference between offers and invitations to treat is crucial in understanding legal intentions. 🧐
• Courts evaluate intention objectively to determine if an offer is binding. For example, a display of goods might be an invitation to treat or an offer depending on the intention. 🤓
• Landmark cases like Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking highlight situations where displays can be legally considered offers. 📜

Key Takeaways

• Offers and invitations to treat are distinct concepts in law. Invitations invite offers, while offers intend legal obligations once accepted. ⚖️
• Courts use the objective approach to determine if a statement or display was intended to be binding as an offer. 🔎
• Not all displays are merely invitations to treat; some, like in certain legal cases, are seen as offers capable of immediate acceptance. 🛍️

Overview

Craig Newbery-Jones starts off with a distinction between offers and invitations to treat, key concepts in contract law. While an invitation to treat invites others to make offers, an offer is a more definitive proposition that signifies an intention to create legal obligations once accepted. 🤝

The video delves into how courts use the objective approach to evaluate whether an offeror intended to be legally bound. By analyzing the factual context of each case, courts assess the offeror's intention through this established methodology, often yielding surprising conclusions. 🕵️‍♂️

Cases such as Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking and Chapleton v Barry UDC provide insights into how items generally seen as displays can instead be offers. This serves as a reminder that not all legal scenarios fit into clean, predetermined categories—highlighting the nuance and complexity within legal interpretations. 📚

Chapters

• 00:00 - 00:30: Introduction and Overview The chapter titled 'Introduction and Overview' begins with musical introduction.
• 00:30 - 01:30: Distinction Between Offer and Invitation to Treat This chapter discusses the distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat in law. An invitation to treat involves inviting others to make offers, whereas an offer is something more definitive and actionable. The chapter aims to help grasp these concepts with greater clarity.
• 01:30 - 02:30: Offer Criteria and Legal Intention This chapter delves into the criteria for what constitutes a legal offer. It emphasizes that an offer is recognized legally only when there is an intention, either actual or apparent, from the person making the statement to be legally bound. This is reinforced once the offer is accepted by the offeree. The courts determine this intention using an objective approach, examining various examples to illustrate.
• 02:30 - 03:30: Objective Approach in Court Cases This chapter discusses the objective approach taken by courts in determining when an offer has been made in legal cases. The emphasis is on the principles derived from notable cases, where courts are looking for specific criteria that indicate an offer. The focus is on whether the statement maker, or the offeror, had the intention to be legally bound as soon as acceptance is made. This objective perspective is crucial in categorizing statements as offers.
• 03:30 - 04:30: Examples: Advertisements and Goods The chapter discusses the distinction between an 'offer' and an 'invitation to treat'. It stresses the importance of correctly identifying each in legal contexts, particularly in advertisements. Generally, advertisements are understood to be invitations to treat rather than direct offers, although this can vary in certain cases. The chapter suggests that the reader will be given clear examples and rules to help understand these differences.
• 04:30 - 05:30: Cases: Thornton v. Sho Parking and Chapleton v. Barry UDC In this chapter, the primary focus is on how various cases are considered as invitations to treat rather than actual offers, using examples like adverts, goods on a shelf with a price tag, and goods displayed in a shop window. This sets a general principle about displays in the context of contract law. The chapter specifically discusses cases such as Thornton v. Sho Parking and Chapleton v. Barry UDC to illustrate these legal concepts. The discussion emphasizes the legal distinction between an invitation to treat and an offer, which has significant implications in determining when a legally binding contract is formed.
• 05:30 - 06:30: Principles from Court Cases This chapter examines principles derived from court cases, specifically focusing on the cases of Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking and Chapleton v. Barry UDC. These cases were selected because they challenge common expectations related to displays and contracts, specifically in the context of notices at car park entrances and the conditions under which an offer is made and accepted, as demonstrated in the Thornton case.
• 06:30 - 07:30: Analyzing Context and Intention The chapter discusses the distinction between offers and invitations to treat, using the example of deck chairs for hire in Chapleton and Barry U.D.C. The court found the display to be an offer instead of an invitation to treat, meaning it was capable of acceptance, demonstrated by actions such as taking a deck chair and sitting on it.
• 07:30 - 08:30: Role of Lawyers and Courts The chapter delves into the distinction between 'invitations to treat' and 'offers' in legal terms. It explains that not all displays or proposals can be classified under a single rule as 'invitations to treat.' Some can indeed be offers that are ready for immediate acceptance. The key to determining whether a display is an offer or an invitation is the intention behind it. This intention is assessed using an objective approach or standard, ensuring that the interpretation is consistent and not biased by subjective viewpoints. Lawyers and courts play a crucial role in interpreting these intentions and applying the appropriate legal standards.
• 08:30 - 09:30: Conclusion and Further Study In 'Conclusion and Further Study,' the focus is on how courts analyze statements by assessing the context and intent behind them. Through cases like Thornton v. Major and Parker or Barry v. Chapton and Barry District Urban District Council, courts consider the facts and intentions of statement makers, which can lead to unexpected outcomes compared to initial expectations. The chapter highlights the importance of objective analysis in understanding legal statements.

Week 2:3 - The Context and the Intention of the Offer Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 [Music] a [Music]
• 00:30 - 01:00 hello and thank you for working through the materials thus far just a short video here just to kind of get us really getting to grips with these ideas that we that we've come across so far so you've looked at offers and invitations to treat and seen that they are different things obviously so an invitation to treat is the your inviting offers to be made whereas an offer is something much more solid which must
• 01:00 - 01:30 meet the legal criteria so essentially it's an an offer is only made where we can see that the intention was there actual or apparent that the person making the statement intended to be legally bound and also that I as soon as it is accepted by the offeree or the promise e now the way that the courts assess that is using the objective approach and when we've looked at some of the examples that you've already worked through some so some of
• 01:30 - 02:00 the cases um and the principles that stem from those cases you can see that that's what they're looking for where the courts have said this is an offer or this is where an we can say categorically that an offer has been made you can see that that it's because it's Meeting those criteria they're looking objectively at whether the statement maker the offerer essentially it um intended they had the intention to be legally bound as soon as acceptance
• 02:00 - 02:30 is made by the other party now that's fundamentally important in being able to distinguish an offer from something else in this case an invitation to treat now you will see that um some of the examples that we've been given it's really clear where something is an invitation to treat and we've got some really um clear rules around these things so example for with adverts in most circumstances they are invitations to treat we will come back to that later because sometimes they're
• 02:30 - 03:00 not but in the vast majority of circumstances they will be invitations to treat so we've looked at at adverts um we've also looked at Goods on a Shelf with a price attached for example and this is important so they're essentially part those like for example Goods on a Shelf with a price attached they are displays and we've looked at Goods in a shop window for example as well now those we've that means we've got some a general principle about dis displays
• 03:00 - 03:30 essentially but there are a couple of cases in there that if you think about the fact of them they don't quite meet what we were looking for or what we might have expected on the back of thinking about displays more generally and those two cases are thoron and Sho parking and chapleton and Barry UD UDC so if you remember Thornton is about the notice at the barrier um an entrance to a car park and that was an offer capable of being accepted by driving in
• 03:30 - 04:00 and in chapleton um chapleton and Barry UDC the display of deck chairs for higher had been held to be have been held to be an offer and we might not have expected that we might have thought actually those look more like akin to invitations to treat they look like displays but actually the court found them to be offers that were capable of immediate of immediate acceptance for example by driving into the car park or by taking a a deck chair and going to sit on it so what we can take from that is that
• 04:00 - 04:30 there isn't a clear one siiz fits all um principle that we can say all displays are invitations to treat because they're not some displays might be offers that are capable of immediate acceptance and how we distinguish those is by looking at the intention with which those that display was made and that intention is objectively examined using the objective approach or the objective standard
• 04:30 - 05:00 so you see if you have a look at Thornton major and and or Parker and um um sorry Barry and um chapton and Barry District Urban District Council you'll see that that is exactly what the court did they analyzed the context of what was happening so the facts of of the case and then they objectively assessed what the statement maker or the the display maker had intended and that gave them a different result than what we necessarily might have expected so
• 05:00 - 05:30 that's a really interesting one for us so we might be able to give you some really basic um problem scenarios for example and you would be able to hopefully Rec start recognizing okay that one fits within this this principle nice and clearly and it's definitely an invitation to treat but we might give you some other examples um or some some other factual situations that might be a little bit more challenging for us to work out exactly
• 05:30 - 06:00 what that display is so whether it is an offer or whether it's an invitation to treat and that is the job of the lawyer and then the job of the courts to assess that if there is um if there is uh debate about what what that display actually was so it's just really honing in that there isn't necessarily one rule that will fit every sing every single fact pattern that we come across what we are looking for is that the intention of the statement maker was there intention
• 06:00 - 06:30 to make an offer and to be bound by that offer as soon as it is accepted and we assess that objectively so chapleton and Thornton and Sho Lane parking are really good examples they're really good cases to maybe go and have a a little bit more of a look at um so that's our job is to be able to distinguish and I will leave you now to go on working through the materials thank you [Music]