Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204
Facts
Partridge placed a classified advertisement in a bird magazine listing bramblefinches and a price. A purchaser responded and obtained a bird. Partridge was prosecuted under the Protection of Birds Act 1954 for offering a protected bird for sale. He appealed the conviction, arguing that the advertisement was only an invitation to treat. Questions about the bird's ring were also raised, but the contractual meaning of the advertisement was decisive to the allegation pursued. The court had to distinguish the published listing from the later dealings that resulted in an actual sale.
Legal Issue
Did the classified advertisement constitute an offer for sale within the charged statutory provision, or merely invite prospective purchasers to make offers?
Held
The Divisional Court allowed Partridge's appeal against conviction for offering a protected bird for sale. The classified advertisement was an invitation to potential buyers to make offers, rather than a contractual offer capable of acceptance by everyone who responded. It therefore did not satisfy the specific statutory allegation of offering for sale on the contractual meaning applied by the court. The fact that a sale later occurred did not cure that mismatch between the charge and the advertisement. The decision did not establish that selling protected birds was lawful or that advertisements can never constitute offers. Their wording, context and any applicable statutory definition remain important.
⭐ Legal Principle
An ordinary classified advertisement listing goods and prices is generally an invitation to treat rather than an offer. The result depends on objective commitment and context; an advertisement may be an offer where its terms clearly promise performance upon acceptance, as in an appropriate unilateral bargain.
Significance
Partridge applies offer-and-acceptance reasoning in a criminal statutory setting, much like Fisher v Bell. That setting explains why precise wording of the offence mattered. It is not a general exemption for unlawful trading conducted through advertisements. Compare Carlill, where sufficiently definite language and circumstances supported an offer. For an exam, distinguish the initial advertisement, a customer's later offer and the eventual sale, and check whether the governing legislation uses contractual terminology or supplies its own definition.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was the advertisement an invitation to treat?
It appeared as an ordinary classified listing of birds and prices, inviting prospective purchasers to approach the seller. It did not objectively commit him to contract with every respondent. The court therefore did not treat publication itself as the contractual offer alleged in the charge.
Why did the later completed sale not establish the charged offence?
The prosecution concerned offering for sale through the advertisement. A subsequent transaction did not alter the legal character of that earlier listing. The case illustrates the need to prove the conduct specified by the offence, rather than substitute a different stage of the transaction.
How can Carlill produce a different result?
An advertisement can use sufficiently definite language and circumstances to promise performance in exchange for a specified act. Carlill illustrates that unilateral-offer possibility. Partridge states the ordinary treatment of a classified goods advertisement, not a categorical rule preventing advertisements from ever being offers.