INVITATION TO TREAT

• An offer is different from an invitation to treat, where an invitation to treat is considered to be a sort of preliminary communication without the intention to of making the other party to be bound by law. An invitation to treat is merely an invitation made to one for him to make the offer. It is not an offer. This, there is no contract.
• In the case of Harris V Nickerson, the defendant was an auctioneer who had advertised in the London paper regarding an auction on numbers of items including office furniture. The plaintiff who intended to purchase office furniture went to the place but discovered that the office furniture was withdrawn by defendant. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and held that the advertisement of goods being sold on auction shall not constitute a promise to potential bidders that the sale will be actually held, but it is merely an invitation to treat.
• However, advertisement may become an offer if there is consideration. Applying the case of Carlil V Carbolic Smoke Ball, The court held that advertisement made by the defendants was an offer because there was consideration (1000 pounds). The act of defendant in depositing 1000 pounds in a bank showed that there was intention to make advertisement as an offer. Therefore Mrs. Carlil claimed was successful because the advertisement made by defendants was supported by consideration.
• Section 4(1) of the Contracts Act 1950


  The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made
• In order to make the proposal effective, it must be clear and communicated. If the offeree knows about the proposal, there will be a contract. A proposal which is vague and uncertain may not lead to a binding contract
• Williams V Carwardine (1883)

  The defendant published a handbill with the promise that he would pay the sum of 20 euro to any person who would provide information leading to the discovery of the murderer of Walter Carwardine. The claimant in this case lived with Williams and was severely beaten by him. As she believed that she was going to die and to ease her conscience, she gave the information leading to the conviction of William for the murderer.
• Williams V Carwardine (1883)

  In an action to recover the reward, the jury found that the claimant was not induced to give information by the reward offered, but by motives of revenge. However the court held that she was entitled for the reward because she had seen the handbill and had given information.
• R V Clarke

  An Australian government offered a reward for information in regards of a murder of two police officers. X and Clarke were arrested and charged with the murders. Clarke later gave some information which resulted in the arrest of Y. Clarke was later found not guilty. He claimed for the reward. The Court held that his claimed failed because although he has seen the offer, it was not present in his mind when he gave information to the police.