The issue raised by the question is whether Sally’s call constitutes an offer. If it does, Ron’s answer of the question is an acceptance of the offer, in result to an existing contract between the parties. However, if Sally’s call is only an invitation to treat, there is no contractual bound between the parties, because Ron’s answer of the questions will not be the acceptance of an offer. In fact, Sally’s call would consist that the making of an offer to answer the question about a product she was promoting and Ron accepted the offer, given that he told Sally he would have answered the question.
Offer and Acceptance have been defined as follows:
Offer and acceptance are means of analysing the process of negotiation to decide whether and when a contract has been made and what therefore constitute its terms. An example of its use to determine if there is a contract is provided by the court in
Gibson v Manchester City Council and of determining when it was made and what its terms were in …show more content…
In that case the formulation of the owner’s letter to the prospective buyer stated that the owner ‘may be prepared’ to sell the property to the prospective purchaser. The House of Lords ruled that the letter was not an offer, but rather, an invitation to treat. Lord Diplock observed that the relevant words in the owner’s letter were critical in coming to the conclusion that the letter was but a step in the negotiations for a contract which … never reached