FACTS
The case involved telegraphed exchange of messages between Harvey and Facey in context of sale of property, Harvey(plaintiff) sent a telegram to Facey(defendant) asking whether he would sell a piece of land and about the lowest price. Facey replied that the lowest price for the property is £900, in response to Facey, another telegram was sent by Harvey stating that “we agree to buy the Bumper Hall pen (property) for the £900 asked by you Please send us your title deed in order that we may get early possession.” Facey then stated he did not want to sell.
ISSUES
Whether a binding contract had been formed based on the exchange of telegrams between Harvey and Facey?
JUDGMENT
The Privy Council ruled that there was no binding contract between the parties. Facey's telegram only conveyed information about the lowest selling price, not a formal offer. Harvey's telegram, expressing agreement to buy the property for £900, was considered an offer, but it wasn't accepted by Facey, who did not explicitly confirm the sale in his previous message. The lack of mutual agreement, a crucial element in contract formation, led to the conclusion that no enforceable contract existed.
Comments