Essay About Mr. S And Point Of View.Case Analysis I. Advertisement

Higher Diploma in Logistics and Transport
HKU Space Community CollegeHigher diploma in Logistics and transportLaw of Business and CarriageCase study AssignmentTutor: Thomas LauName: Yip Kwan Ming, Adrian (20009824)Dates of submit: 6th, March 2017ContentIntroductionCase analysisAdvertisement Analyze of meetingAnalyze of phone callConclusionRecommendationsHow to avoid same happen again in the futureReferencesIntroduction In Mr. S and Mr. B’s case, I assume that this case is occurred in Hong Kong, all the analysis and legal advices to this case are based on common law system, all the court case examples are used for supporting my point of view.Case analysis I. Advertisement In Mr. S and Mr. B’s case, we have noticed that Mr. S posted an advertisement in one of the popular English newspaper for selling his racing car at HK$ 2.88 million who acted as an offeror. Generally speaking, an advertisement can be an offer or an invitation to treat. But in this situation, I consider this advertisement is only an invitation to treat not an offer, according to this advertisement, Mr. S only stated he is selling his racing car and the price of this racing car, so it is not an offer because an advertisement in newspaper is not offering to sell the racing car but to inviting the readers to make an offer to buy it. However, Mr. S’s advertisement is only telling the public about the racing car is HK$ 2.88 million instead of people need to pay $2.88 million to Mr. S if they need to buy this racing car, on the other hand, an offer need to made clear to one party with world or action. To conclude, the advertisement can only invite people to make an offer to buy it and Mr. B became an offeror to make a purchase.Here is a court case to show how to determine whether an advertisement is an offer or an invitation of treat. In 1968 (Partridge v Crittenden 2 All ER 421, HC QBD) the appellant placed an advertisement in a magazine, which said “Bramble-finch cocks, hens and other types of wild bird for 25 shillings (£1.25) each” due to the Protection of birds act 1954, selling wild bird are not accepted in that moment, In that advertisement, there are no wordings similar to “offering to sell”, so the court need to determine that advertisement would constituted as an offer or not. At last, the high court was held that this advertisement is an invitation of treat because the wording of “offering to sell” is missed and the appellant must be acquitted. With the same legal principle, Mr. S’s advertisement is an invitation to treat while the word of “offering to sell” not appeared; also, Mr. S’s racing car is limited stock so he cannot sell to everyone which means this advertisement is an invitation of treat not an offer.