Jury’s Decision in the Case of Alex Vs Abigail


Jury’sDecision in the Case of Alex Vs Abigail


Jury’sDecision in the Case of Alex Vs Abigail

Thecircumstances surrounding this case are quite peculiar and can betroubling if not interpreted carefully. According to the jury, Ms.Abigail placed an advertisement to the whole world inviting thepublic to buy her purebred Chihuahua puppies. Under no circumstanceis Ms. Abigail a breeder of purebred Chihuahua puppies. As such, thepublic could not have been certain about the number of puppies Ms.Abigail had. For instance, what could have happened if Ms. Abigailhad received 1000 payments from the public? If the court treats Ms.Abigail’s advertisement to the public that would mean that, shewould have to be bound by the law to any customer who sends theirmoney to the address she stated. Simply put, that would defeat thepurpose of trading, which is intended for bargaining and not oncompulsory terms. Given that she is not, or was at least not abreeder at the time of the sale, reduces the entire advertisement toan invitation to treat (Omitola et al., n.d).

Now,after reducing the advertisement to an invitation to treat, Ms.Abigail presented a counter-offer to Mr. Alex through her conduct. Bysupplying a “mutt” she picked at a pound, she presented Mr. Alexwith a new offer for which he was supposed to accept or decline, andas it is, he accepted the counter-offer. Alex’s acceptance of thecounter-offer finalized the contract between the two, and as such,the lawsuit is unjustified. Having said that, Mr. Alex is notjustified to bring a lawsuit against Ms. Abigail, and neither is hejustified to receive compensation for damages, especially given thefact that he refused to part with the new dog he was supplied by Ms.Abigail. That would be simply, unjust enrichment.


Omitola,Obe, Adebajo, and Balogun. (n.d). Offer and Invitation to Treat.