Differentiation of Invitation to Treat and Offer: A Comparative Study in Iranian and English law

Abstract

Distinguishing an invitation to treat from an offer has long been a subject of discussion among scholars. The main question of this research is what criteria can be used to distinguish an offer and an invitation to a transaction. In response to this question, the authors, with a comparative look at the laws of Iran and England and a descriptive-analytical approach, concluded that it is possible to accept a measurement under the title of "suppliability" in English law and based on the theory of "Lord Herschell" and "Lord Parker". Also, considering Sad Dharai (Blocking Means to Evil)[1], leads to the approval of the mentioned approach and the acceptance of this assessment. This approach briefly states that if the merchant cannot supply goods when presenting the offer, the offer should be considered an invitation to treat and not an offer. It is also true and if the store has a history of mass production and it was as much as the customer's offer or more, regarding that considering such a proposal as an offer does not cause a breach of the contract. Trading customs also strengthens the same conclusion. In this research, an attempt has been made to examine the approach of the legal systems of Iran and England in facing similar instances of offer and invitation to treat. [1] The preemption of the means to evil is one of the fundamental principles of Sharia. It is defined as the prohibition of an otherwise permissible matter but which may be used to commit corruptions or prohibitions.

Keywords

• offer
• advertisements
• auction
• english law
• invitation to treat