## Facts

- Harvey sought to buy a Jamaican property known as Bumper Hall Pen from Facey.
- Harvey telegraphed Facey asking (1) whether Facey would sell and (2) the “lowest cash price.”
- Facey replied by telegram: “Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen £900,” without stating any willingness to sell.
- Harvey responded: “We agree to buy … for … nine hundred pounds,” requesting title deeds and early possession.
- Facey refused to sell, and Harvey sued alleging a binding contract of sale.
- At first instance, the Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica dismissed the claim for lack of a concluded contract.
- The Jamaican Court of Appeal reversed, finding a binding agreement.
- On further appeal, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reversed the Court of Appeal and restored the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether Facey’s telegram stating “Lowest price … £900” constituted an offer capable of acceptance.
2. Whether Harvey’s final telegram operated as an acceptance forming a binding contract for sale.

## Decision

- The Privy Council held that no contract was formed.
- Facey’s “lowest price” telegram was a response supplying price information, not an offer to sell.
- Because Facey made no offer, Harvey’s purported “acceptance” could not create a contract and was, at most, an offer requiring Facey’s assent.
- The Court of Appeal was reversed, and the trial court judgment dismissing the claim was reinstated.

## Legal Principles

- A statement of a “lowest price” given in response to an inquiry is generally a supply of information, not a contractual offer.
- An offer requires an objective manifestation of willingness to be immediately bound on stated terms upon acceptance.
- Where no definite offer is made, a purported acceptance cannot form a contract; it is treated as a counterproposal or new offer requiring acceptance.

## Conclusion

The Privy Council rejected the claim for specific performance because the telegrams did not show a definite offer by the seller; the seller’s price quotation was informational only, so the buyer’s reply could not complete contract formation.


Harvey v. Facey, [1893] A.C. 552 (J.C.P.C.)