# data[].attributes.body
It was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court however they appealed.

# data[].attributes.body
Held-
The court held that the statement made by Mr Dodds was nothing more than a promise , there was no binding contract formed. The offer for buying the house could be revoked at any time before the acceptance, and without an explicit communication for the same there was no obligation to keep open the offer.

# data[].attributes.body
The defendant's conviction was quashed. The advert was an invitation to treat not an offer. The literal rule of statutory interpretation was applied

# data[].attributes.body
Goods on the shelf constitute an invitation to treat not an offer. A customer takes the goods to the till and makes an offer to purchase. The shop assistant then chooses whether to accept the offer. The contract is therefore concluded at the till in the presence of a pharmacist.

# data[].attributes.body
D sent a letter to C offering to sell wool, C received it on Sep 5 and sent a letter of acceptance on the same day

On Sep 9, the acceptance letter arrived, but D had sold the wool to someone else on Sep 7

C sued for breach of contract, but D argued that there had been no contract when he sold the wool.

# data[].attributes.body
Held: D was in breach of contract.There was a valid contract which came in to existence the moment the letter of acceptance was placed in the post box. This case established the postal rule.

# data[].attributes.body
Placing an item on display is not ‘offering it for sale’ – merely an ‘invitation to treat’.

# data[].attributes.body
it was held that the tenax message was effective as soon as it was sent, not when it was read by the defendant, as the message was sent during normal office hours and it was due to the negligence of the workers not checking the messages.

# data[].attributes.body
The advertisement was not an offer but an invitation to treat. D held not guilty.

# data[].attributes.body
The d (City Council) had policy selling c
ouncil houses to tenants. The c, a tenant, applied for details of the house and mortgage terms. The council responded, but after a change in policy and a change in government, they refused to sell. The claimant sued for breach of contract. The case went to the House of Lords.

# data[].attributes.body
Held - Defendants conviction was quashed. Advert was an invitation to treat not an offer.

# data[].attributes.body
d had a flicker knife on display and the statute made it a criminal offence to offer such objects like flicker knifes for sale. it was squashed not as an offer but an invitation to treat

# data[].attributes.body
The original letter did not bind the defendant as it had been validly withdrawn by the defendant, so the claimant’s acceptance was invalid. The principle of the case is that one party cannot be bound while the other is not.

# data[].attributes.body
D contacted the claimant in writing offering to purchase the lease of the C's home stating that it would remain open to the claimant for 6 weeks. However, in the 6 weeks before the C had accepted, D had changed their mind and wrote to C to withdraw the offer. After receiving this second letter, still within six weeks from the first, the claimant accepted the defendant’s offer.

# data[].attributes.body
HELD
The House of Lords held that there was no concluded contract and the defendant was not legally bound to sell the property, as the council’s letter did not state the price and was not an offer but an invitation to treat. - The letter didn’t have the price of the houses so it wasn’t an offer it was an invitation to treat which means it wasn’t binding.

# data[].attributes.body
The claimant was injured in a car park partly due to the defendant's negligence. The claimant was given a ticket on entering the car park after putting money into a machine. The ticket stated the contract of parking was subject to terms and conditions which were displayed on the inside of the car park. One of the terms excluded liability for personal injuries arising through negligence.

# data[].attributes.body
The offence is to sell, not to have an invitation to treat. There is no offer to sell, but there is always an offer to buy.

# data[].attributes.body
The ship belonged to the defendants. They sold the ship to the complainant on the condition that it would be time-chartered back to them. The hire payment was made later than agreed. The complainant sent a Telex message which gave notice of withdrawal of the ship from service. However, the defendant did not see it and had already made the payment.

# data[].attributes.body
Held - Goods on the shelf constitute an invitation to treat not an offer. A customer takes the goods to the till and makes an offer to purchase. The shop assistant then chooses whether to accept the offer. The contract is therefore concluded at the till in the presence of a pharmacist.

# data[].attributes.body
The defendant Mr Dodds wrote to the complainant Mr Dickinson with an offer to sell him his house for £800. He promised he would keep the offer open until Friday but he then accepted a third party on offer on Thursday. It was understood that Mr dickinson thought he had until Friday and would have payed the money.

# data[].attributes.body
The court held that in accordance with the general principles of contract law, the display of the knife was not an offer of sale but merely an invitation to treat, and as such the defendant had not offered the knife for sale within the meaning of s1(1) of the Act.

# data[].attributes.body
The defendants sold a car in a unroadworthy conditions. Under the Road Traffic Act 1972 it was an offence to sell a unroadworthy vehicle. The defendants were charged with offering for sale a vehicle in such a condition. The offence is to sell, not to have an invitation to treat. There is no offer to sell, but always an offer to buy.

# data[].attributes.body
the appellants sold a car in unroadworthy conditions and the road traffic acr 1972 offence makes it offence to sell such a vehicle . Offence to sell not to have an invitation to treat.

# data[].attributes.body
The machine itself was a part of offer. This is because acceptance was by putting the money into machine. The ticket was distribute after the the acceptance took place and therefore the clause was not incorporated into the contract.

# data[].attributes.headline
The defendent advertised for sale a number of bramble finch cocks and hens stating that the price was to be 25 shillings each it is unlawful to offer for sale any wildlive bird 

# data[].attributes.subject
The defendent advertised for sale a number of bramble finch cocks and hens stating that the price was to be 25 shillings each it is unlawful to offer for sale any wildlive bird 

# data[].attributes.body
It decided that communication of withdrawal of an offer by telex is effective when it could be read, rather than when it is in fact read.

# data[].attributes.body
The defendant Mr Dodds wrote to the complainant Mr Dickinson with an offer to sell him his house for £800 by Friday however on the Thursday Mr dodds accepted a third party offer without telling Mr dickinson who would have bought the house by Friday.

# data[].attributes.body
By requiring 'notice in writing', Dr Hughes had specified that he had to actually receive the communication and had therefore excluded the postal rule.

# data[].attributes.body
The shopkeeper (defendant) displayed a flick knife in his shop window accompanied with a price ticket displayed just behind it. He was charged with offering the sale of a flick knife. The court had to determine whether the knife amounted to an invitation to treat or if it was on offer on sale. If it was an offer on sale then the shopkeeper would be charged under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. The police sued for this offence.