Question

Legal Principle: A contract requires a proposal and an acceptance of the proposal. To make a binding contract it is necessary not only that the proposal be accepted, but also that the acceptance is notified to the proposer.

Factual Situation: Harvey sent a telegram to Facie stating 'will you sell us the estate of Bumber Hall pen for $\$$4,900. Harvey sent another telegram to Facie stating 'We agree to buy Bumper Hall pen for a sum of $\$$4,900 asked by you. Please send us your title deeds in order that we may get early of possession.' But Facie did not sent any reply to the last telegram sent by Harvey.Hence, Harvey filed a case against facie claiming the Bumber Hall Pen estate.
Issue: Is there valid contract between Harvey and Facie?

• A. Yes, there is a valid contract because Harvey made an offer for it there times and Facie did not respond which amounts to his acceptance.
• B. There is not valid contract because there is no acceptance of the offer.
• C. It is voidable contract at the option of Harvey because Harvey had made repeated offers.
• D. None of these.

Answer 1

The correct option is B There is not valid contract because there is no acceptance of the offer.

The instance resembles the case of Harvey v Facey of the UK Privy Council. In this case, the plaintiff asked for the property from the defendant and asked the lowest cash price to be paid. The defendant stated the cash price and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the property at the stated price. But the defendant did not agree to sell the property. The Privy Council held that the first telegram by the plaintiff was only a request for information and not an offer to buy the property. Therefore, the reply was also another invitation to offer and not acceptance to any offer.