Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204

Facts

• Mr. Partridge placed an advertisement in a periodical stating, "Bramblefinch cocks, Bramblefinch hens 25s each."
• He was charged with unlawfully offering for sale a wild, live bird under the Protection of Birds Act 1954.
• The prosecution argued that the advertisement constituted an "offer for sale" in violation of the statute.
• The court was required to determine whether the advertisement was an offer or merely an invitation to treat.

Issues

1. Whether the advertisement in question constituted a legal offer or was merely an invitation to treat.
2. Whether Mr. Partridge was in violation of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 by offering wild birds for sale through his advertisement.
3. Whether interpreting advertisements as offers would result in impractical obligations for advertisers with limited stock.

Decision

• The High Court held that the advertisement was not a legal offer but an invitation to treat.
• Mr. Partridge was found not liable under the Protection of Birds Act 1954 and his conviction was overturned.
• The court reasoned that treating advertisements as offers would create unreasonable contractual obligations for advertisers, especially where stock is limited.
• The judgment clarified that a price list or advertisement generally does not amount to an offer in contract law.

Legal Principles

• Advertisements are generally regarded as invitations to treat rather than offers, meaning that they invite potential buyers to make offers rather than binding the advertiser to supply goods.
• An offer is a clear expression of willingness to contract on specific terms such that acceptance will result in a binding agreement; an invitation to treat simply calls for offers and does not bind the party making it.
• English contract law applies an objective standard, focusing on how a reasonable person would interpret the communication.
• Policy reasons for this distinction include protecting traders from excessive contractual liability and giving them control over whom they contract with.
• The distinction provides legal certainty, avoids sellers unintentionally creating binding contractual obligations to an unlimited number of buyers, and reflects commercial reality.
• Other jurisdictions, such as France, may treat public advertisements as offers if the terms are sufficiently clear, highlighting differing international approaches.

Conclusion

Partridge v Crittenden confirmed that advertisements are generally invitations to treat, not offers, preventing advertisers from being bound to unlimited obligations. The decision provides clarity for contract formation and illustrates the importance of statutory and contractual interpretation in English law.