Invitation To Treat (7).

What is the difference between an offer and an invitation to treat? Whenever the courts have to decide whether a contract is enforceable or not, the first thing they consider is whether a valid offer was made or was there only an invitation to treat. In this video, we explain how students can differentiate between them in the same way that courts do, using cases such as Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979). The general presumption with advertisements is also explained using Partridge v Crittendon (1968) while an American case by the name of Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (1957) is given as the exception to the presumption.
Exam Prep (Books):
Question & Answer Contract Law: amzn.to/2xUm5YC
Optimize Contract Law: amzn.to/2RnvGiy
Where can you find out more?
Follow us on each of our social media platforms:
Facebook: / swbil
Instagram: / swbil
OR
Visit our website: www.bsolpk.org/

[@francesdunn9547]

Thank you for the clear and well structured explanation. It’s very helpful

[@SWBIL]

Glad it was helpful!

[@t8506]

Thank you for the simple explanation

[@luyandomusonda5667]

But how do you differentiate your points on the last case to that of carlil v carbolic smoke ball in which it was held that that was a unilateral offer. And that it’s possible to make an offer to the whole world.

[@chibuzormordi9307]

Very helpful

[@alexsteadler6000]

Good explanation. Make more videos

[@SWBIL]

Sure 👍