offer/intenion to treat?

想問餐廳menu是offer or intention to treat?若我同個待應講一道menu寫$25的菜應值$30, 甘我是否offeror? 個侍應accept的話, 我就要比$30?



A posted an advertise: office for sales $1m (intention to treat?)

B said to A: the office should be sale for $2m (offer?)

A: No, $3m (new offer?)

A sell office to C.

B sent a letter to A to accept. (Postal rule?)

2 個解答

  • 藝添
    Lv 6
    1 十年前

    An invitation to treat is not an offer, but an indication of a person's willingness to negotiate a contract. In Harvey v Facey, an indication by the owner of property that he or she might be interested in selling at a certain price, for example, has been regarded as an invitation to treat (ITT). Similarly in Gibson v Manchester City Council the words "may be prepared to sell" were held to be a notification of price and therefore not a distinct offer. The courts have tended to take a consistent approach to the identification of invitations to treat, as compared with offer and acceptance, in common transactions. The display of goods for sale, whether in a shop window or on the shelves of a self-service store, is ordinarily treated as an invitation to treat (Fisher v. Bell) and not an offer. The holding of a public auction will also usually be regarded as an invitation to treat.

    待應講一道menu寫$25的菜應值$30, 甘我是否offeror?

    只是intention to treat





  • N70
    Lv 7
    1 十年前

    首先, 係 Invitation to treat, 唔係 Intention to treat.

    過往不少案例 (例如 Pharmaceutical Society v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) 及 Fisher v Bell) 都指出商店標價出售貨品一般只是 Invitation to treat, 顧客拿貨品到收銀處付款才是 Offer. 而餐廳 menu 的情況類似, 所以相信是 Invitation to treat, 顧客點菜才是 Offer.

    至於你和待應的說話, 如果你的說話是一個 Offer 而侍應接受了, 那合約便成立, 你當然要按協定付出$30.

    但如果你向待應講的說話真係「這道$25的菜應值$30」, 我會認為你只是在對餐廳的定價發表意見, 見不到如何跟 Offer 或 Invitation to treat 扯上關係, 相信侍應亦只會聽完就算, 懂得做生意的或會向你回應 「係呀, 我地d野好抵食」.

    如果你明確表示出價$30去買那道$25的菜, 那便是 Offer. 若你只是詢問的形式, 那便可能是 Invitation to treat. 但無論如何, 你認為待應聽到客人這樣說/問會不感到奇怪嗎 ? 所以相信會達成這有效但奇怪的合約的機會不大.