7/23/2019 Case of Harvey v Facey

1/2

Harvey v Facey

The case of Harvey v Facey 1 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 defendant (Facey)

querying !ill you trade us Bumper Hall Pen" Telegraph minimum cash price.# Facey replied bytelegram $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 Facey 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 tosell 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 base on requested by Harvey. The

supplying information %as not considered as offer.

Analysis

-n this generally, one party supply information to another party. The person provides 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 supplied by the efendant

should not considered as a offer if %e refer to the parties conduct it %ill be unfair 0udgement. /

3 Harvey v Facey 637'89 :;P1 3, 637'89 /1 44 Harvey v Facey 637'89, accessed 7 th ?ctober 3

7/23/2019 Case of Harvey v Facey

2/2

request for information must be discerned from a contractual offer.