Gibson v Manchester Mr Gibson, a council tenant, was interested in The House of Lords held that original letter Invitation to treat City Council purchasing his council house. He completed from the Council was an invitation to treat, the relevant application form and received a a first step in a series of negotiations, not letter from the Council stating that be an offer. Mr completed it ‘may Gibson’s prepared to sell the house to There was application form was the offer to buy and him’. some correspondence regarding the price that there had been no acceptance by the stated and the state of the house but the Council. The words be prepared to ‘may Council refused to lower the price. Mr Gibson displayed no contractual intent and sell’ later wrote to the Council stating that he wished were intended only to invite Mr Gibson to to on with the purchase as per my make an offer for the property. ‘carry The Council, following a change in application’. political control, decided to stop selling council houses. They wrote to Mr Gibson informing him that they would no longer be proceeding with the sale of the house. Mr Gibson brought an action in breach of contract. Storer v Manchester City Mr Storer received a letter from the council The Court of Appeal held that the letter was Offer Council for Mr Storer signed in fact an offer which the claimant had labelled ‘Agreement sale’. and returned the document before the political accepted before the property was control of the council changed. The council withdrawn from sale. then revised its policy on selling council houses and refused to sell the house to Mr Storer. Bowerman v Association The claimant in this case was part of a school The Court of Appeal held that the ABTA Offer of British Travel Agents ski trip. The school booked with a tour operator notice displayed in the travel agent’s office Ltd which was a member of the Association of created a contract between ABTA and the
Gibson v Manchester City Council Mr Gibson, a council tenant, was interested in purchasing his council house. He completed the relevant application form and received a letter from the Council stating that it ‘may be prepared to sell the house to him’. There was some correspondence regarding the price stated and the state of the house but the Council refused to lower the price. Mr Gibson later wrote to the Council stating that he wished to ‘carry on with the purchase as per my application’. The Council, following a change in political control, decided to stop selling council houses. They wrote to Mr Gibson informing him that they would no longer be proceeding with the sale of the house. Mr Gibson brought an action in breach of contract. The House of Lords held that original letter from the Council was an invitation to treat, a first step in a series of negotiations, not an offer. Mr Gibson’s completed application form was the offer to buy and that there had been no acceptance by the Council. The words ‘may be prepared to sell’ displayed no contractual intent and were intended only to invite Mr Gibson to make an offer for the property. Invitation to treat Storer v Manchester City Council Mr Storer received a letter from the council labelled ‘Agreement for sale’. Mr Storer signed and returned the document before the political control of the council changed. The council then revised its policy on selling council houses and refused to sell the house to Mr Storer. The Court of Appeal held that the letter was in fact an offer which the claimant had accepted before the property was withdrawn from sale. Offer Bowerman v Association of British Travel Agents Ltd The claimant in this case was part of a school ski trip. The school booked with a tour operator which was a member of the Association of The Court of Appeal held that the ABTA notice displayed in the travel agent’s office created a contract between ABTA and the Offer