COMPELTE CASE ANALYSIS - ENTIRE SUBJECT CASES SUMMARISED

Description

Complete Case Analysis JURD7150 Principles of Private Law & JURD7152 Introducing Law and Justice Term 1, 2026 | UNSW Sydney   Every case in the reading guide, summarised into below format: Gibson v Manchester City Council House of Lords JURD7150 | Week 1A | Contracts • Offer • Invitation to Treat Facts: The local council published a booklet inviting applications for the purchase of houses at fixed prices. Gibson applied for a property but the council later withdrew the offer before formally accepting his application. Gibson sued, claiming a binding contract had been formed. The council argued they had only made an invitation to treat and were not bound to accept any application. Issue: Whether the publication of the booklet and price list by the council constituted a binding offer to sell, or merely an invitation to treat that the applicant could accept by applying. Holding/ Decision: The House of Lords held that the council's invitation to apply was an invitation to treat, not an offer. The offer came from the applicant when submitting the application, and the council was free to accept or reject it. Ratio: Display of goods or property with price lists and invitations to apply are generally invitations to treat, not offers. The person invited submits the offer, and the offeror can choose whether to accept. This preserves the offeror's freedom and prevents being bound by unwanted acceptances. Reasoning: Majority (Lord Wilberforce) Dissenting • Lord Wilberforce stated: 'The nature of a tender, as an invitation to accept offers, has been established by long authority' • Lord Fraser noted the council's position should be analysed 'in accordance with the well-known principles applicable to cases of this nature' • The court emphasized that property sales differ from retail transactions, and councils must retain discretion over whom to contract with • No dissent noted. Obiter: • The court noted that invitations to treat are typically made when the offeror wishes to reserve the right to refuse applications • The decision aligns with common law principles governing the formation of contracts in commercial and administrative contexts Notes: Legal Significance: • Established definitive test distinguishing offers from invitations to treat in property and administrative contexts • Protects offerors by allowing them to control contract formation and select contracting parties • Clarified that advertisements and price lists are generally invitations to treat unless clear language indicates otherwise Application: • Applied to determine when councils and businesses are contractually bound by published terms or advertisements • Used in consumer law to establish when advertisements create binding obligations Connections: • Contrasts with Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company where unilateral offers were made • Foundational case for understanding when an invitation to treat becomes an offer Citation: [1979] 1 WLR 294 (HL)