Harvey vs Facey
Harvey v Facey (1893)
1. Facts:
Harvey sent a telegram to Facey asking:
“Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest price.”
Facey replied with:
“Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen is £900.”
Harvey then sent another telegram saying:
“We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for £900. Please send details of the payment.”
Facey did not respond or agree to sell.
2. Legal Issue:
Whether Facey’s telegram stating the price was an offer or simply a statement of information.
Whether there was a valid contract between Harvey and Facey.
3. Judgment:
The court held that Facey’s telegram was NOT an offer, but merely a statement of the lowest price.
It was information given in response to a request and not an invitation to contract.
Therefore, Harvey’s acceptance of the price did not create a binding contract.
Since there was no offer, there could be no acceptance and thus no contract.
4. Key Legal Principles:
Offer vs Statement of Information:
A mere statement of price or willingness to negotiate is not an offer.
Offer must show intention to be bound:
For a contract to exist, an offer must indicate an intention to be immediately bound upon acceptance.
Response to a request is not an offer:
Answering a question about price or terms is information, not a proposal.
5. Significance:
This case clearly distinguishes between an offer and a mere supply of information.
Helps determine when a binding contract is formed — critical in contract negotiations.
Important for understanding communication in contract formation.
6. Summary Table
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Facey’s statement | Statement of price (information), NOT offer |
| Harvey’s action | Attempted acceptance of a non-existent offer |
| Contract existence | No contract, as no valid offer was made |
| Principle established | Offer must show intention to create legal relations |
RELATED Blog
0 comments