HARRIS VS NICKERSON (Legal Aspects of Business) - 1

HARRIS VS
NICKERSON
PRESENTATION OF CASE STUDy
PRESENTED BY MBA SECTION :- 9
Chandan Kumar
Devanshi Sinha
Biswajit sau
Geetika Pal
Bhaskar kumar
SECTIONS
Meaning of Invitation to Treat under Indian Contract Act:
– It refers to an invitation for a party to make an offer enter
into contractual negotiations. In the invitation to treat or offer,
no specific party has the intention to enter into a contract. The
seller can enter into a contract with anyone from the public
who offers him the best. So, the essence of an invitation to
offer is that the offer is made by the buyer.
A proposal or an offer has to be differentiated from invitation
to treat or offer. Sometimes a person may not offer to sell his
goods but gives some details or information to invite others to
make an offer on that basis.
SECTIONS
1.The difference between an offer and an invitation to treat is very basic and is
primarily rooted in the ‘intent’ of the parties. While an offer allows the other
party to enter into a contract directly (which is a legally binding agreement) as
soon as it is accepted, an invitation to treat is primarily an invitation to the
other party to negotiate and makes an offer to the seller himself.
2.When we go to a bookstore, the display of books in the shop is an invitation to
treat the general public by the bookseller. Anyone passing through the shop
can come to buy one of their books or can buy later. Here, no one is legally
obliged to perform any action.
3.Similarly, most forms of advertisements are not offers, but invitations to make
offers.
4.An offer is the final willingness of the party to create legal relations. An
invitation to offer is not the final willingness but the interest of the party to
invite public to offer him.
SECTIONS
4. An offer is defined in section 2 (a) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Conversely, an invitation to offer is not defined in the Indian Contract Act,
1872.
5. An offer is an essential element to make an agreement between the
parties, but an invitation to offer is not an important element until it becomes
an offer.
6. An offer becomes an agreement when accepted. On the other hand, an
invitation to offer becomes an offer when the public responds to it.
7. The main objective of making an offer is to enter into the contract,
whereas the main objective of an invitation to offer is to negotiate the terms
on which the contract can be made.
Facts
The Defendant placed an advertisement in London papers that
certain items, including brewing equipment and office furniture,
would be placed up for auction over three days in Bury St.
Edmunds.
The Plaintiff obtained a commission to buy the office furniture and
expended time and expense to travel to Bury St. Edmunds to bid for
the office furniture. On the third day, the lots for the office furniture
were withdrawn.
FACTS
The Plaintiff sued for loss of time and expense. The judge at first
instance found in favour of the Plaintiff. Leave was given to appeal
to the High Court.
The Plaintiff submitted that the advertisement constituted a contract
between themselves and the Defendant that the latter would sell the
furniture according to the conditions stated in the advertisement,
and that accordingly the withdrawal of the furniture was a breach of
contract. The Defendant submitted the advertisement of a sale did
not constitute a contract that any particular lot or class of lots would
actually be put up for sale.
CONTENTION/ Agreements
Def. argument
- Macrae Moir, for the defendant, contended that it
was clear that advertising of a sale did not amount
to a contract with anybody who attended the sale
that any particular lot, or class of articles
advertised, would be put up for sale.
CONTENTION/ Agreements
Warton, for the plaintiff, contended that the ad. Of the sale by the
defendant was a contract by him with the plaintiff, who attended the
sale on the faith of it, that he would sell the property advertised
according to the conditions, and the withdrawal of the property after
the plaintiff had incurred expenses in consequence of the ad. Was a
breach of such contract. A reasonable notice of the withdrawal of
goods, at all events ought to have been given. He likened the case
to that of an ad. Of a regard though general in its inception, becomes
a promise to a particular person who acts upon it before it has been
withdrawn He likened the case to that of an ad. Of a regard though
general in its inception, becomes a promise to a particular person
who acts upon it before it has been withdrawn.
Whether or not there is a contract between the defendant and the
plaintiff?
No, there is no contract between the defendant and the plaintiff. For
the defendant, contended that it was clear that there was a mere
advertising of a sale which did not amount to a contract with
anybody who attended the sale that any particular lot, or class of
articles advertised would be put up for sale. Mere declaration of an
offer does not amount to a binding contract. Plus, an offer is
different than an invitation to offer.
Thus, there was no contract between Nickerson and Harris.
Whether or not there was any communication involved between the defendant and
the plaintiff?
No, there was no communication involved between the plaintiff and

the defendant as there was no contract present between them. The
defendant had no intention to enter into a contract with the
plaintiff. What the defendant had intended was an invitation to an
offer and not an actual offer, one can only give acceptance to an
offer and not to an invitation of an offer. In the case there was
no bidding involved which amounts to communication between the
auctioneer and the bidder.
Is the defendant liable to compensate plaintiff’s damages?
No, the defendant is not liable to compensate plaintiff’s damages as there

was no contract. Defendant being an auctioneer cannot enter into a
contract with everybody attending it plus, the auctioneer cannot be held
liable for the expenses of any article withdrawn in the auction & is not
liable to compensate the plaintiff.
JUDGEMENT
The court dismissed the claim of the plaintiff, and unanimously held
that the advertisement was not an offer, rather it was a mere
declaration to sell. Hence, there was no contract between the
plaintiff and the defendant.
JUDGEMENT
• They stated that, mere advertisement dose not amount to a
warranty to put up the published articles for the sale. Justice Quian
contended that it would be a very inconvenient rule of law to put that
an auctioneer would be liable to everybody who attended the sale.
Thus, the defendant would not be held liable to pay the
compensation.
REASONING
• In Harris v Nickerson, Queen's Bench Division found for the
defendant. The court held that the mere advertisement of auction in
the newspaper does not amount to an offer, therefore, the advertiser
is free to withdraw the goods from the auction at any time prior to
the auction.
REASONING
Blackburn J said:
"In the case of Warlow v. Harrison, the opinion of the majority of the
judges in the Exchequer Chamber appears to have been that an
action would lie for not knocking down the lot to the highest bona fide
bidder when the sale was advertised as without reserve; in such a
case it may be that there is a contract to sell to the highest bidder,
and that if the owner bids there is a breach of contract."
REASONING
Quain J said:
"When a sale is advertised as without reserve, and a lot is put up and
bid for, there is ground for saying, as was said in Warlow v. Harrison,
that a contract is entered into between the auctioneer and the highest
bona fide bidder."
CONCLUSION
 My conclusion of the case study of Harris v Nickerson is that Mr.
Harris’s demand for compensation for his loss of time and expenses
was unjust as Mr. Nickerson was not bound in any contract with Mr.
Harris. When a sale is advertised and a lot is put up and bid for,
there is a ground for saying that a contract is present between the
auctioneer and the highest bona fide bidder but it is not applicable
here.
CONCLUSION
Here the lots were never put up and no offer was made nor any
•promise was made by the defendant except by his advertisement that
certain goods would be sold which too was also an Invitation to offer. I
believe it was an attempt on the part of the plaintiff to turn a mere
declaration of intention a binding contract.
In case of an auction, bids are treated as an offer and the 3rd fall of the
hammer is considered as an acceptance only after that a contract is
made, which again was absent in the case study of Harris V Nickerson,
thus the defendant was not liable to pay.
THANK YOU

HARRIS VS NICKERSON (Legal Aspects of Business) - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HARRIS VS NICKERSON (Legal Aspects of Business) - 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HARRIS VS NICKERSON (Legal Aspects of Business) - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HARRIS VS

PRESENTED BY MBA SECTION :- 9

No, there was no communication involved between the plaintiff and

No, the defendant is not liable to compensate plaintiff’s damages as there

You might also like