\u201cThe person who makes an offer is known as Proposer or Offeror or Promisor and the person to whom the proposal or offer is made is known as of the Proposee, Promisee or Offeree. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
EXAMPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nA offers to sell his motorcycle to B for \u20b9 3,000. B agrees to pay \u20b9 3,000 to A for the motorcycle. In this, A is the Offeror or Promisor and B is the Offeree or Promisee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>ESSENTIALS OF VALID OFFER OR PROPOSAL<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nOFFER AND ACCEPTANCE CONTRACT LAW NOTES<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nThe various rules\nregarding valid offer for the essentials of valid offer are as follows: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Offer or proposal must be capable of creating legal relationship <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nIf the offer does not intend to give rise to the legal consequences, it is not a valid offer in the eyes of the law. The social offers or social engagements does not become a valid contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CASE: BALFOUR VS. <\/em>BALFOUR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nA husband was serving in the Ceylon. He promised orally to his wife, who was living in England, to pay an allowance of $30 per month to her. The husband did not pay the money and the wife filed suit against the husband. It was held that the agreement between them was just a family arrangement and they never intend to create legal relationship. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Offer or proposal must be definite and certain <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAn offer must be definite and certain. An indefinite or vague offer cannot be accepted as the courts in such cases cannot tell what the parties are to do. The intention of the party must be very clear as to what they intend to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CASE:\nTAYLOR VS. PORTINGTON<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nA agreed to take 2\nhouses on rent for 3 years at the rent of $85 per annum provided the house was\nput into thorough repair and the drawing rooms were decorated according to the \u201cPresent\nStyle\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cPresent Style\u201d is a vague term as this term would have different meanings to different parties. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thus, the agreement was declared void as the terms of offer were vague and uncertain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>An offer or a proposal must be communicated to the offeree <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAn offer must be communicated to the person to whom the same is addressed. Communication of offer is important to conclude an agreement because acceptance can be given only if one knows about the offer. This rule applies to both \u2018specific\u2019 and \u2018general\u2019 offer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
An offer made to a definite person or body of persons is called specific offer<\/strong>. It must be accepted by that specific person or party only. <\/p>\n\n\n\nThe offer made to the public as a whole is called general offer. <\/strong>It can be accepted by anyone from the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\nSection 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872<\/strong> states that communication of an object is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. <\/p>\n\n\n\nCASE: LALMAN SHUKLA VS. GAURI DUTT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe nephew of the defendant Gauri was missing. He sent\nhis servant Lalman to find him out. After the servant had left, he announced a\nreward of \u20b951 for anybody who would trace his\nnephew. The plaintiff traced the nephew before having knowledge of the reward\nannounced by the defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiff claimed the reward when\nhe came to know about it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Held that plantiff could not recover the reward as the\noffer containing the reward was not communicated to him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Offer or proposal must be made with a view to obtaining the assent of the other party <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe offer must be made with an intention to obtain the assent of the other party. The offer made as a prank or a joke is not a valid offer and therefore if accepted, it cannot amount to a valid contract. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
CASE: HARRY VS. NICKERSON<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nN advertised in the newspaper to affect sale of his goods\non a particular day at a particular place. H travelled a long distance to bid\nfor the things. On arrival, he found that the sale was cancelled. He sued N for\nthe breach of the contract. It was held that advertisement was merely\nexpression of an intention and not an offer which could be accepted by\ntravelling to the place of intended sale. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
EXAMPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nIf B jokingly offers M to sell his scooter at \u20b910 and M knowing that B is not serious, accepts the offer, such acceptance does not hold any value as the offer made jokingly is not valid. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>An offer or a proposal may be conditional <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAn offer can be made subject\nto the condition. In that, it can be accepted only subject to that condition. If\nthe conditions are clearly expressed or written and these have been made known\nto the offeree, then he is bound to fulfill these conditions. Conditional offer\nlapses when the conditions are not fulfilled. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
CASE: THOMPSON V. L M. AND S. RAILWAY\n1930<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nT, who could not read, took an excursion ticket on the railway. On the front of the ticket was printed \u201cfor conditions see back\u2019. One of the conditions was that the railway company would not be liable for personal injuries to the passengers. T was injured by a railway accident. Held T was bound by the conditions and could not recover any damages. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
CASE: MACKILLICAN V. CAMPAGNIE DE MESSAGERIES MARITIMES DE FRANCE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nA plaintiff purchased a ticket from a railway company. It was printed on the front of the ticket ” for conditions see back”, but he never cared to read the conditions as these were given in the French language which X could not read. It was held that there was no excuse for the plaintiff that the conditions were in French language because he had sufficient notice as to the conditions and this was his duty to make himself acquainted with them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>An offer or a proposal should not contain such term the non compliance of which would amount to acceptance. <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe offeror cannot\nsay that if the offeree does not communicate acceptance by a certain time, the\noffer would have been deemed to be accepted. The burden of the communication of\nrejection of offer cannot be imposed on the offeree. if offeree sent no reply,\nthere is no contract. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
EXAMPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nA writes to B \u201cI offer to sell my house for \u20b9 40,000. If I do not receive a reply by Monday next, I shall assume that you have accepted the offer\u201d. There will be no contract if B does not reply. <\/p>\n\n\n\nOFFER AND ACCEPTANCE CONTRACT LAW NOTES<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/span>An offer or a proposal must be distinguished from declaration of intention <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nA mere statement of\nintention is only an intention to give an offer. It only states that offer will\nbe made in future. The acceptance of statement of intention does not constitute\na contract. Whether a particular statement is offer or mere a statement of\nintention depends upon the circumstances of the case. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
CASE: FARINA VS. FICKUS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nA father brought to his would-be son-in-law that his\ndaughter would have a share of what he would leave, after the death of his\nwife. It was held that letter contains a statement of intention only.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CASE: HARVEY VS. FACEY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nX telegraphed Y, ” Will you sell us Bumper Hall Penn? Telegraph lowest cash price.” Y replied telegraphically, ” Lowest price for Bumper Hall Penn $900″. X telegraphed, ” We agree to buy Bumper Hall Penn for $900 asked by you. Please send us your title deeds in order that we may get early possession”. It was held that there was no offer made by Y. He never intended to sell the Bumper Hall Penn. It is mere an information about the lowest price.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>An invitation to offer is not an offer <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAn offer must be\ndistinguished from \u201cInvitation to an Offer.\u201d The offer should express his\nwillingness to do or abstain from doing something. But where a party proposes\ncertain terms on which he is willing to negotiate, he is not making an offer\nbut only inviting others to make an offer on those terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CASE: HARRY VS. NICKERSON<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nN advertised in the newspaper to affect sale of his goods on a particular day at a particular place. H travelled a long distance to bid for the things. On arrival, he found that the sale was cancelled. He sued N for the breach of the contract. It was held that advertisement was merely expression of an intention and not an offer which could be accepted by travelling to the place of intended sale. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
An advertisement in a newspaper to sell certain goods is not an offer but it is an invitation to offer. “Such advertisements are offer to negotiate-offer to receive offer”. It is not the final expression of willingness by the advertiser, making him not bound by the terms of advertisement. The main purpose of the person who gives advertisement in the newspaper is to sell the certain article by inviting offers from the potential buyers and this does not constitute an offer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Display of goods with the prices marked on the, quotations, catalogues and railway time table and auction sales etc. are the examples of Invitation to an offer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Offer or proposal may be expressed or implied <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe offeror can make\nan offer through words or even by his conduct. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
An offer made by words spoken or written is called Express offer.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\nEXAMPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nX offers to sell his house to buy through a letter it is\nan Express offer<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When a person makes an offer through his conduct, it is known as