Case of Harvey v Facey

Harvey v Facey

The case of Harvey of Harvey v Facey1 is about sale of a property called Bumper Hall Pen. The prospective  buyer hereby called plaintiff (Harvey), sent a telegram to the seller hereby called ca lled defendant (Facey) querying !ill !ill you you trade us Bumper Hall Pen" Telegraph Telegraph minimum minimum cash price.# price.# Facey replied by telegram $o%est price for Bumper Hall Pen &'.# Harvey after that come bac %ith a telegram contained !e grant to purchase Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of &' quoted by you. Please for%ard us your title deed in order that %e can mae early possession.# but there are no response for  the received telegram. $ater, Harvey brought an action to enforce the contract. The court held a contract for the sale of the property could only have been concluded if Face y had accepted Harvey*s final telegram. Facey had not said that he %ould sell the property and had merely stated the minimum price he %as %illing to sell at. Harvey could not imply Facey*s telegram %as an offer to sell as this must be e+pressly given.  -n this case there %as no legal contract occurred bet%een those t%o parties (Harvey and Facey). This is because the seller hereby called defendant, Facey had no directly ans%ered the first question ased by the plantiff, Harvey. !hether Facey agree to sell and the minimum price stated %as merely supplying information information base on requested by Harvey. The supplying information %as not considered as offer.

Analysis

-n this this gene general rally ly,, one one party party supp supply ly info inform rmati ation on to anot anothe herr party party.. The The perso person n prov provid ides es the the information to acquaint the other party. The statement is not e+pected to be acted consequent to it. The supplying information %as not considered as offer. -n this case, there %as no clear evidence sho%s an intention that the telegram sent by efendant, Facey %as to be an offer. /n offer is an action of %illingness to mae a contract %ith the intention that it shall become binding on the offeror as soon as it is accepted by the offeree. But in this case the efendant (Facey) had no intention to mae a contract, the replied he sent to plaintiff is 0ust a information and no legal effect on it. -n opinion, all agreement and contract must refer to 1ontract /ct. /s for 2alaysia, 2alaysia  practiced 1ontract /ct 3'45. The reason %hy all agreement and contract must follo% the 1ontract /ct is because all parties should bound to it and to mae a fair 0udgement in favor of either party  based on the 1ontract /ct. -t is necessary to loo into the structure of the offer and acceptance rather than the parties conduct as a %hole. -n this case, the information information supplied supplied by the efendant efendant should not considered as a offer if %e refer to the parties conduct it %ill be unfair 0udgement. / 3 Harvey Harvey v Facey 637'89 637'89 :;P1 :;P1 3, 637'89 637'89 /1 /1 44  Harvey v Facey Facey 637'89, 637'89, access accessed ed 7th ?ctober 3

request for information must be discerned from a contractual offer.
8 Preston 1orporation