Canadian Dyres Association v. Burton H.L.

- 1920
Facts:
• P – requests lowest sale price – holds this is an I-to-T
• D – Burton – quotes a sale price … claims = I-to-T rather than Offer
• P – asks for clarification and reconsideration a year later
• D – quotes a low prices “at which he is willing to sell”
• P – “Accepts” and holds this is a binding K
• D – sends deed, accepts deposit and sets date for final sale.
Issue:
• Was D’s cmns a price quote (or I-to-T) or was it an offer.
Holding:
• D made an offer … determined by plain reading in conjunction with subsequent actions - π wins
Ratio:
• Price quote = Invitation to Treat
• Crts will look at both language of transaction &subsequent actions to determine intent

Pharmaceutical Society v. Boots CA – England - 1953

Facts:
• P – Appellant - Pharm Soc – charges Boots with selling o/s reg’s
• D – Respondent – Self serve pharm
• P argues sale takes place at counter, in view and in compliance
Issue:
• At what point is K complete (beyond the mgr’s ability to stop sale)
• ie what is offer and what is accept in this retail setting
Holding:
• At cashier – Appeal dismissed
Ratio:
• goods on shelf = I-to-T
• Offer of cash at register = Offer and retail sale = Accept … take the $4
• NOTE: exectutory consideration … this can occur later … cash need not x-change
hands immediately

R. v. Darwood Alberta CA - 1976

Facts:
• D – appellant – convicted of shoplifting/theft
• 2 items with tags for one or both … mixes tags to get both for lower price
• deceived cashier and paid lower price; argue (1) K complete (2) mistake of fact
Issue:
• was there agreement and therefore a valid K?
• Where was the offer … offer to buy or offer to sell… Does cashier have the authority to accept?
Holding:
• Offer at cashier and authority to accept
• A valid, but VOIDABLE K … due to theft (as was overruled at SCC on the issue of crim law)
Ratio:
• not really an issue of K law … Price-tag = I-civ!foke6civ!foke6o-T and Offer occurs at
register
• store never intended to put forward an I-to-T under the thief’s terms

Goldthorpe v. Logan CA – England - 1943

Facts:
• P – appellant – Goldthorpe – seeks hair removal … sees newspaper ad
• D – respondent – Logan – ad for service … guarantees results
 • P – visits shop and receives further assurances in accordance with ad
• unsuccessful procedure – sues for damages
Issue:
• Negligence in procedure?
• Did a K exist and, if so, was it breached?
Holding:
• No negligence … hair growth beyond control of Logan
• Ad – Offer … key consideration of surrounding circumstances
• Breach of K – damages awarded
Ratio:
• Gen. assume that ads are I-to-T’s … not offers
• Language used in ad, in conjunction with further verbal assurances along the same
lines = OFFER … major POLICY considerations here

REFERENCE

BIUKOVIC-CONTRACTS – FALL
Derry Dance 2003