Partridge v Crittenden PDF

Preview

Summary

Exams practise...

Description

Partridge v Critenden Case Brief by Kallista Lee

Title: Partridge v Critenden Parties: Plaintiff/ Respondent – Anthony Ian Critenden (on behalf of RSPCA) Defendant/ Appellant – Arthur Robert Partridge Court: Queen’s Bench Division Date: April 5, 1968 Procedural History: The plaintiff charged the defendant with unlawfully offering for sale a bramblefinch hen contrary to section 6 (1) of the Protection of Bird Act 1954, and the hen, included in schedule 4 of Act 1954, was a non-ringed specimen bred in captivity. The Chester justices were of opinion that the advertisement was an offer for sale rather than a invitation to treat, and that the hen was not a ringed specimen because the ring could be removed. The case proved and the plaintiff was fined ₤5, and offered him pay ₤5 5s advocate’s fee and ₤4 9s 6d witnesses’ expense. The plaintiff appealed the case to the Queen’s Bench Division. Case Facts: A brambling was a bird included in schedule 4 to the Protection of Bird Act 1954, of specie which was resident in or visited the British Isles in a wild state. According to the Protection of Bird Act 1954, selling species within the schedule 4, other than a closed-ringed specimen bred in captivity, was contrary to section 6(1). The appellant inserted an advertisement in a periodical, “Cage and Aviary Birds”, containing the words “” Quality British A.B.C.R. … bramblefinch cocks, bramblefinch hens… 25s each” which appeared under the general heading “classified advertisements”. The respondent enclosed a cheque for 30s and asked that a hen be sent to him by appellant. The hen arrived wearing a closed ring which could be removed without injury to the bird and the box was opened respondent under supervision of the prosecution. Legal Issue: 1. Whether the bramblefinch hen was a close-ringed specimen bred in captivity. 2. Whether the advertisement inserted by appellant was an offer to sale or a mere invitation to treat.

1

Partridge v Critenden Case Brief by Kallista Lee

Appellant’s Argument: 1. The advertisement was a mere invitation to treat. 2. The possibility of removing ring form the bird’s leg did not mean that it was not of a closed-ring specimen. Respondent’s Arguments: 1. The advertisement was an offer for sale which contrary to the Act 1954. 2. A bird was not a close-ringed specimen bred in captivity if it was possible to remove the ring from its leg. Decision of Court: Appeal was allowed and conviction of appellant was quashed. (All 3 judges agreed) Judge’s Opinion: ASHWORTH J. 1. In no place was there any direct use of the word “Offers for sale”. 2. The lack of such expression strengthened the case for appellant. 3. Brambling was not such a bird as a person can legitimately sell within the Act 1954. 4. Definition of close-ringed “it means ringed by a complete ring, which is not capable of being forced apart or broken except, of course, with the intention of damaging it ”, and “the expression of ‘close-ringed’ is nowhere defined nor is there any universally recommended size ring got a bramble finch.” 5. Refer to Fisher v Bell – advertisement did not constitute an offer for sale. This case in regard to articles in a shop window, namely that the insertion of an advertisement in the form adopted here under the title “Classified Advertisement” was simply an invitation to treat. 6. There was a sale here because Mr. Thompson sent his cheque and the bird was sent in reply. 7. This was a plain case of appellant having possession for sale the bramble finch, but the prosecution wrongly chose to prosecute him for offering got sale and relied on the advertisement. BLAIN J. I agree. LORD PARKER C.J. 1. Dealing with advertisements and circulars, unless they indeed come from manufacturers, there was business sense in their being construed as invitation to treat not offers for sale. 2. Refer to Grainger & Son v Gough – Lord Herschell: “The transmission of such a price-list does not amount to an offer to supply an unlimited quantity… as soon

2

Partridge v Critenden Case Brief by Kallista Lee

as an order is given there is a binding contract to supply that quantity.” 3. Common sense supported that an advertisement was not an offer for sale but a mere invitation to treat. Rule of Law: There is business sense in construing advertisements and circulars, unless they come from manufacturers, as invitation to treat and not offers for sale.

3...