Brief of Partridge v Crittenden

Brief of Partridge v Crittenden by Legum

Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204

Material Facts:

Partridge placed an advertisement which read “Bramblefinch cocks, Bramblefinch hens, 25's each”. The advertisement made no mention of an offer to sell the birds. Crittenden, a member of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals brought an action against Partridge for selling a live wild bird in contravention of section 6 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 (UK).

Procedural History:

The trial court held that the advertisement was an offer and Partridge was convicted. Partridge appealed the conviction.


1. Whether or not Partridge’s advertisement constituted an offer for the sale of a live wild bird.


1. It was held that the advertisement in question was merely an invitation to treat and not an offer.

Ratio Decidendi:

Judge Ashworth reasoned that in no part of the advertisement were the direct use of the words “offers for sale”. The justices relied on the principle as was established in Fisher v. Bell and ruled that the advertisement by Partridge was not an offer but an invitation to treat.


What are your comments on the ruling?