in this lecture we shall discuss the law of contracts specifically we shall introduce the discussion on what amounts to an offer in law in this lecture we shall seek to explain what qualifies as an offer in law and how an offer can be distinguished from an invitation to treat we shall seek to explain what an offer is and then see how we can distinguish and offer from an invitation to treat now this topic is very important because in the law of contracts there are some key elements that have to be established before we can conclude simply that there is a valid contract in the existence and one of the key elements is that there might be an offer and a corresponding acceptance now the other elements like there must be an intention to create legal relations and that there must be consideration and also that the parties must have the requisite capacity to contract but in all these things you realize that there's always a requirement that before there can be a valid contract then there must be an offer which is going to be met with a corresponding acceptance so the question then is how do we conclude and identify that there is a valid offer in existence like I've said the existence of a valid offer and a corresponding acceptance is a requirement for a valid contract to be found to be in existence in some textbooks you'll see that element being described as that there must be an agreement so the first element of a valid and a binding contract that we are discussing is that there must be an offer and a corresponding acceptance so what then is an offer in this lecture we shall explain what an offer is we shall distinguish and offer from an invitation to treat I'm going to look at the different forms of invitation to tweets that we can have in the law of contracts so the first thing is to explain what an offer is to explain what an offer is now there's this Ghanaian case of nthc versus entry and those government kills of mtac versus entry it's very very helpful in determining what amounts to an offer now in the Supreme Court of Ghana in this case of mtat versus entry the Supreme Court of Ghana speaking through that demand years gave some elaborate explanation of what amounts one offer and this is what the learning author says and I quote basically an offer is an indication in words or by conduct by and often wrong that he or she is prepared to be bound by a contract foreign s expressed in the offer if the offer we communicates his acceptance if the very communicates to the overall his or her acceptance of good things accordingly the offer has to be definite and Final and must live and must not leave significant terms hoping for further negotiation by significance we hear mean terms that are essential to the bargain contemplated it is important to emphasize the proposition that the mere acceptance of an offer is sufficient to turn the offer into a contract if there is consideration for it together with an intention to create legal relations in the good ends now from the victim of Dr man JSC in the case of nthc versus entry what can we bring to be the definition of an offer and it's important at this point to rehash the words of that about GST in nc80 versus entry he says and I quote once again basically an offer is an indication in words or by conduct buy enough for royal that he or she is prepared to be bound by a contract in the terms expressed in the offer if the offer me communicates to the overall his or her acceptance of those teams now from this what we can do it is that an offer confess the mail either in words or it can be made by conduct now the essential thing to note about this definition is that the learner Justice emphasizes that an offer must have that characteristic that the moment the person to whom the offer is made communicate his acceptance then the offer is going to be converted into a contract if whatever has been communicated does not have this essential characteristic then it will not qualify to be on offer yeah that's words or the conduct it must have that finality such that the moment the person to whom it is made communicates its acceptance then it we are going to have a contract if there is consideration and there's an intention to create legal relations so if the words that are communicated do not have that finality attached to them they do not have that capability of being converted into a contract the moment the person to whom it is made communicates acceptance if there's no finality like that then the words are not amount to an offer and so you will see that in this case of nt80 versus NP the Leonard Justice that a man indicates that accordingly and I'm quoting according the offer has to be definite and fine now and must not leave significant terms open for further negotiation what does it mean by this it means that the offer must be definite and they must be fine now that I hereby offer my car to you for still at five thousand Ghana cedis if you want to buy it communicate your acceptance not later than 3 pm on first of January this month it is clear there's nothing the price is there how you can communicate your acceptance is there so an offer must be definite it must be fine now and it might leave nothing further for negotiation and it must have that capability of being converted into a contract moment the person to whom it is made communicate his acceptance and so from that victim of that about Jesus there should be some points that we can bring for more to make some words or conduct amount to an offer now we can now at this point conclude that an offer can be made to an individual or that an offer can also be made to a group of individuals or an offer can also be made to the world at last now we can also note that before some statement will amount one offer then the statement must demonstrate willingness on the path of the person making the statement to enter a bargain and also the person making and expressing the willingness must also demonstrate what he requires the person to whom the offer is made to do by way of acceptance so that's for an offer you are saying that there must always be that finality attached to wait in fact if you leave something further from negotiation then they cannot qualify it to be an offer and you can see that I'm emphasizing on this point because it is this finality which is attached to the offer that is what distinguishes and offer for manipulation to treat and that is why I have spent the first few minutes so much time to rehouse the point that before some words will amount to an offer they must be definite they must be final and they must leave nothing further for negotiation and they must have that capability of immediately being converted into a contract the moment the offering or the person to whom the offer is made communicate his acceptance and this point that I just made has been emphasized Again by Dr ban JSC on the Supreme Court of Ghana in the same case of ntsa versus NG and in order to dumb home the points strongly meet me at this point to once again read from NTA versus entry so that we can tell how that the bank GNC distinguished an offer from an invitation to treat this is what the learner justices and I quote once again it is this need for finality and definiteness which leads to the analytical need for the concept of invitation to treat if a communication during negotiations is not the final expression of the alleged of a rose willingness to be bound it may be interpreted as an invitation to the other party to use it as a basis for formulating a proposal emanating from him or her that is definitely enough to qualify as an offer thus the indefinite communication may be what generates an offer from the other side end of good now what the learner Justice is saying in the Daniel case of nt80 versus entry is that when the communication is so indefinite then it may well be that that indefinite communication which is not fine now which is not definite it may well be that that communication is what is rather inviting the other party to make an offer so for example if the person makes a statement which is so indefinite is not final that it may rather be inviting the person to whom it is made to rather make an offer for example the person makes a statement saying that what it may be good to sell this vehicle now you can tell that from this statement there's nothing said about price there's nothing said about how you should even communicate to acceptance there's nothing said about when acceptance should be communicated so if I say it may be good to sell this vehicle I may be inviting the people around to rather make an offer in other words because the statement I made is not definite because the statement I made is not final because the statements are made leaves a lot of things for negotiation that statement can not by any stretch of legal imagination amount to an offer because there are a lot of things that have left for discussion I just said I it may be nice to sell this vehicle nothing said about price so this statement cannot amount one offer that is why the learning Justice that the man Jesus says that it is this need for finality and definitely would lead to the analytical need for the concepts of invitation to treat and say that if a communication during negotiations is not the final expression of an alleged of a rose willingness to be bound it may be interpreted as an invitation to the other party to use it as a basis for formulating a proposal emanating from him or her that is definitely enough to only fast and offer thus the indefinite communication maybe what the news and offer from the other side and in fact the London Justice goes there to say that and invitation to treat I'm still quoting that the ban Jac in the case of NTA versus NG of the Supreme Court of Ghana Canada quotes an invitation to treat is that to be distinguished from an offer on the basis of the proposals lack of an essential characteristic of an offer namely its finality which gives a capacity to don't worry to transform the offer into a contract by the mere communication of his or her accents to its famous end of course so take note of this statement because it will be very helpful to you when we get to the different forms of irritating to treat remember this statement that an invitation to treat a dog to be distinguished from an offer on the basis of the proposal's lack of an essential characteristic of an offer namely a finality which gives a capacity to the offering to transform the offer into a contract by the mere communication of his or her team Ascent to his teams so when we get to invitation to treat and we are looking at the different times you realize but the different kinds of invitation to Traders will look at for those ones they are rather inviting the other party to make an offer in other words one other party communicates anyways those were the other party communicate cannot amount to an acceptance because in that other party who is rather being invited to make the offer in fact there is one statement that brings out the distinction between offer and acceptance offer any invitation to truth clearly and it is so important that I have to make reference to this statements and you will get the statement from chitty on contracts and I refer you to the 28th Edition volume one paragraph two a page 93 in fact when he gets there you will see the important statements that has been made to distinguish and offer from an invitation to treat now if you look at this particular author and the statement that he makes in relation to invitation to tricks this is what another author says a communication by which a party is invited to make an offer is commonly called an invitation to treat it is distinguishable from an offer primarily on the bound that it is not made with an intention that it was to become binding as soon as the person to whom it is addressed simply communicates his accents to estimates end of goods now take note of this concave development others are telling that a communication but what a party is invited to make an offer is commonly called an invitation to treat and if they let others say that it is distinguishable from an offer primarily primarily on the ground that it is not made with the intention that it is to become binding as soon as the person to whom it is addressed simply communicate his accents to its steps and so simplistic though the distinction between an offer and an acceptance books as we proceed you will see that there have been several cases that have militant in fact the effect of the parties have only dependent on whether the West communicated amounts one offer or not and I'll introduce you to two key cases the moment you get these cases your understanding of offer and invitation to true [Music] there are two cases that involve the same defendants they're in the case of Gibson versus Manchester City Council and also foreign versus Manchester City Council the moment you get these two cases your understanding of offer offer acceptance and evidently and you will not have any problem again in your ability to distinguish and offer form and invitation to treats so we shall begin with the first case of Gibson versus Manchester City Council Gibson versus Manchester City Council is reported in the 1979 weekly law reports at page 294. Gibson versus Manchester City Council reported in the first volume from the weekly lawyer reports at page 294 and the facts and holding that I shall proceed to give in this case of Gibson and Manchester City Council the fact I shall give and read out are facts and holdings taken from deal pool's book on contracts geopol's case book on contract law now these are the facts that we can get from jio pool's case book on contract loan and I read and these are the brief facts of Gibson versus Manchester City Council and I read the council adopted a policy of Selling Houses to tenants the respondents tenants applied on the printer form for details of the price and mortgage terms the city treasurer wrote to the respondents that the council may be prepared to sell the house to you at the purchase price of 2725 pound sterling less 20 which would equal 2180 pound sterling the letter gave details of the mortgage likely to be made available and stated and I quote if you would like to make a formal application to buy please complete the enclosed application form and return it to me as soon as possible end of course owing to The crucial importance of this code which was in the letter I shall read it once again this is the treasure route to the respondents and the letter gave beetles of the mortgage likely to be made available and stated if you would like to make a formal application to buy please complete the enclosed application form and return it to me as soon as possible the respondents completed the application form and retained it before contracts were prepared and exchanged political control of the council changed and the council decided to proceed only with those sales for which contracts had already been exchanged I'll take that portion again the respondents completed the application form and retained it before contracts were prepared and exchanged political control of the council change and the council decided to proceed only with those sales for which contracts had already been exchanged the respondents such specific performance of an alleged contracts to purchase his Council house claiming that he had accepted the offer in the City Treasurer's letter now at this point let me go over this case and then highlight exactly what is happening now there's a council which is the Manchester City Council he adopted a policy of selling their houses to their tenants now the respondents in this case applied for the price and mortgage themes they traveled back and the content of the letter is very important the content of the letter that the city treasurer wrote to the respondent reads he said they made the operative word is made they may be prepared to sell the house to you at the purchase price of and the prices quoted report over there they may be prepared and what is even more crucial the letter went ahead to state that if you would like to make a formal application complete the enclosed application form and return it to me as soon as possible so they say the treasurer is actually inviting the respondents to make a forward application by completing the enclosed application form and returning it now even though the respondents completed the application form and returned it no contrast were prepared no contract were assigned now when the government change hands and there was a new party in power they decided to only sell the house to people that they already had an existing contract with so the question then will be what have transpired between the city council and Gibson that is Gibson fill in the application form and returning it whether that process would create an existing contract because if it is found that the feeling of the application form would amount to an acceptance then it means that there would begin to be a valid contract my evidence is found that the statement and the feeling of the forms by Gibson actually amounted to the offer then it means that then there will be no contracts because as we have seen when Gibson filled the application form and sent it there was no response from the city council there was no contract that was signed so what then would be the holding of the Courts now if you look at the holding of the courts remember the main issue would be that the letters that were sent by the city council to Gibson would they be deemed to be an offer if they would be deemed to be an offer then it means that the communication gives him made by filling the application form and sending it it will be deemed to be an acceptance but if the communication form the council is construed to be an invitation to treat then what it would mean is that it is Gibson that has rather made the offer which may or may not be accepted by the city council so we we must determine the link down status of the communication made by the Manchester City Council we must interrogate that communication and find out what the communication would amount to an offer or whether it would amount to an invitation to tricks and like I've said if we establish that the communication by the council amounts to an invitation to treat now what it means is that Gibson will be deemed to be the one who made the offer which the council has not yet accepted remember the new political party is saying that only sell the house to people that you have an existing contract with now this is the whole name of the Courts and this holding you can glean from the jio pools case book on contracts law 13th edition and I quotes there was no binding contracts because no offer capable of acceptance have been made by the council the statements in the city Treasures letter that the council may be prepared to sell again the statement in the city Traders letter that the council may be prepared to sell an inviting Mr Gibson to make a formal application to buy did not constitute an offer to sell but I was only an invitation to treat now these are the words of one of the justices Lord Russell and these are his words at page 980 of the reports now Lord Russell sell as follows and I quotes my lords I cannot bring myself to accept that a letter which says that the possible vendor could maybe prepared to sell the house to you be regarded as an offer to sell capable of acceptance so as constitutes a contract the language simply does not permit such a construction these are the words of the Justice in the case of Gibson and Manchester City Council so what we have gotten so far in this case of Gibson and Manchester City Council is that the council wanted to sell houses with their attendants then they wrote to the respondent that the council may be prepared to sell to you the letter gave details of the mortgage likely to be made available and instead if you would like to make a forward application complete the former attendance what we have seen at this point is that the court has construed the letter sent by the council as an invitation to treat meaning that when Gibson filled the application form and sent it he would have made the offer and that offer was not accepted before the government changed hands so since it wasn't accepted it means that there was no contract with Gibson and therefore they were not bound to sell the house to Gibson and that's why I will once again read the whole name of the Court as we can capture from jio pool's case contract and that's what he says that there was no binding contract because no offer capable of acceptance have been made by the council the statements in the city Treasures letter that the council may may be prepared to sell and inviting inviting inviting Mr Gibson to make a formal application to buy did not constitute an offer but was only an invitation to treat so at least we can conclude on this gifting case that it was a council who made the invitation to treat giving me the offer and there was no acceptance before there was a change in government since there was no acceptance then there was no contracts foreign like I said this case of Gibson and Manchester City Council has to be contrasted with the case of Torah versus Manchester City Council also reported in 1974 three all England reports at page eight to four now this case of Torah versus Manchester City Council reported in 1974 three all England reports at page 824 these are the facts and holding that we can get from the headloots and like I said the moment you can distinguish this case from Gibson you are 100 well vexed in issues related to offer and acceptance and invitation to treat to start versus Manchester City Council reported in 1974 three all England reports had paid 84. these are the facts and holdings that we can get from the head moves of the case and I read as follows and I could in 1970 a corporation then under the conservative party control resolved to offer Council houses for sale unfavorable terms to certain tenants the town clerk was instructed to prepare a simple form of agreement for sale the form prepared accorded with the instructions giving details giving spaces for details of purchaser's name the property the price the mortgage amount if any the proposed purchasing solicitors and by Clause 7 debate when your tenancy ceases and mortgage repayment to commence it stated that there would be no investigation of title and that the conveyance would include a restriction against lease or seal of the property for five years in February 1971 the plaintiff store applied on the corporation's application form stating that he wished to purchase his house with the benefits of a mortgage on March 9th the city treasurer replied that the corporation would learn the whole purchase price will payable over 25 years on the same date the town clerk wrote a letter enclosing the agreement for sale and a list of solicitors and stating if you will sign the agreement and return it to me I will send you the agreement signed on behalf of the corporation in exchange again if you will sign the agreement and return it to me I will send you the agreement signed on behalf of the cooperation in exchange most of the details on the phone had been filled in but the dates under Clause 7 was not put in the letter invited power to select a solicitor from the list to advise him on the purchase he put in solicitors names signed it and returned it to the town clerk on March 20th the dates and across seven were still less blank but an internal memorandum dated match 12. from the tenancy's manager to the town clerk recommended March 22nd or April 12th as alternative dates for completion of the sale the local Authority did not find time to complete and send to Torah the corporations agreements in exchange at that time and in May local elections were held would put a labor party majority in control the policy of Selling Houses was reversed and the town clerk was instructed to write lieutenants including stock who have sent in the agreements for sale telling them that the council had decided to proceed with sales only in those cases where contracts have been exchanged and that out there have been no formal Exchange in the case of Torah The Proposal could not proceed in a County Court store asked for an order of specific performance of the contract by their defense the cooperation claimed that there was no concluded contracts and further but as the date in class seven was a material thing and was not filled in any alleged contract was void for uncertainty now let us digest what is going on so far now in this case you have to pay critical attention to the letters written in the forms that were filled now take a critical look at the facts now the third clip was started to prepare a simple form of argument for sale this form gave the space for digital of Predator's name the property price mortgage amounts great now this is a treasurer wrote a letter saying that if you will sign the agreement and return it to me I will send you the signed memo sign I will send you the agreement signed on behalf of the corporation exchange that statement is very crucial if you will sign the agreement and return it to me I will send you the agreement signed on behalf of the corporation lectures very definite communication now if you sign this argument and return it to me I will also send you the agreement signed on behalf of the corporation no doubt very definite statements and more importantly most of the details on the phone have been filled in the only thing left out of the date and when we say most of the things in the form have been filled in remember the things that it means that purchaser's name is over there price is over there Market amounts the only thing left was when that argument to begin to commend the date now now the council is saying that all that they sent out was an invitation to treat and therefore what story was you rather make an offer which they are not yet accepted foreign to accept it so story is saying that the communication that came from the council amounted to an offer he has accepted by filling the form and sending it so there's a contact according to Torah so Torah has sued them asking for an order of specific performance by the council is also saying that the letter they sent amounted to an invitation to treat and that if anybody had told me an offer then it was rather store what did the court hold now the Court held that the statement and the letters written by the council actually amounted to an offer and that story filling the form and returning it and money to an acceptance because as we also see the communication by the council was definitely it was clear it left nothing for enough for negotiation the most important terms of the agreement the book was only left I was standing was the date on which we have to insects apart from that thing whenever things have been infected so that's the whole thing that we can get from the head moves and I read in the context of a scheme designed to disappearance for legal formalities of which the formal exchange of contracts was one there was on the documents to included agreement for the sale and purchase of the house from the moment when the tenant accepted the terms of the offer by completing and returning the agreement for sale and he was entitled to specific performance of that contract by having the property conveyed to him the addition of the dates underclaw seven was a near matter of administrative convenience and arraignment between the parties and its absence on March 20th did not affect the validity of the contracts so what you can get so far from this case is that the pot is holding that the communication made by the council amounted to an offer and this offer what accepted by his Torah when they filled application forms and sent it in fact what is even more important and even makes everything clear about restaurant in Manchester City Council are the west of Lord Benin and how he dissected the law in relation to offer and invitating to treat in fact onto is crucial importance I will even go ahead and read the victim of Lord Benin to demonstrate how he explained that the communication from the council actually amounted to an offer and not an invitation to tricks now these are the words of Lord Daniel in the case of Torah versus Manchester City Council and I could in May of 1971 there was a change in the control of the Manchester City mandatory Corporation previously the conservatives had been in control afterwards it was Labor the change had legal replications during the conservative Administration the policy of the corporation was to sell their houses to tenants unfavorable teams they were willing to sell to any certain tenants who have been in occupation more than a year the sale price was to be the market value of the house it's sold with vacant possession but with a reduction of the tenants according to the length of time he had been in the premises as attendance he might get a reduction of from 10 to 20 percent on the price furthermore the corporation were ready to give him a hundred percent mortgage when the labor Administration took over in May 1971 that policy was reversed the labor-controlled administration decided that they would not sell Council houses to tenants but they realized that they could not go back on existing contracts so they gave instructions to the officers that they were to fulfill existing contracts but not to make fresh contracts now in many cases tenants had filled in various forms applying to buy their houses but the contracts of sale have not been exchanged the terminals claim that firm contracts have been made The Firm God has been made even though the contracts have not been exchanged by the time collect talks that the contracts were only binding when contracts of sale have been exchanged so he wrote the letter to the tenants and I quotes at their meeting on July 7 1971. the council decided to discontinue the scheme for the sale of council houses and to proceed only with those cases where contracts have been exchanged as contracts have not been formally exchanged in this case I am unable to proceed with a proposed sale end of quotes Lord didn't went ahead to deliver him so much foods and I could and remember we are still on the keys of Torah versus Manchester City Council and London continues as follows now Mr story one of the tenants has Brothers action to test that ruling the facts are these Mr store was attendant of a council house 167 more Cross Road on November 15 1970. he filled in a request for information asking for the price and details of any mortgage on January 14 1971 the corporation would say that they may be prepared to sell the house to you at the price of 200 2750 pound sterling less a discount of 17 as he had had a council house for several years making a net sum of 2 282 pounds if he were granted a mortgage it will be for [Music] 2279 repayable over 25 years they said in their letter and I quote this letter should not be regarded as a firm offer of a mortgage end of course Lord only went ahead to see us follows later on however they did make a firm offer as I will show on February 11 1971 maestera filled in an application form to buy a council house he said and I quote I wish to purchase my Council house end of course in it he asked for a loan on mortgage on March 1971 the city treasure wrote to him and I quote the cooperation will lend 2279 Pounds Sterling repayable over 25 years with interest at 8.5 percent the total monthly installment payable would be 1 498.7 on the same day of March 9 1971 the tank like himself wrote a letter which is of crucial importance in this case and I put the content of the letter DSA sale of council house I understand you wish to purchase your Council house and enclose the agreement for sale if you will sign the agreement and return it to me I will send you the agreement signed on behalf of the corporation in exchange and I have to call this letter again from the council BSA sale of council house I understand you wish to purchase your Council house and enclose the agreement for sale if you will sign the agreement and return it to me I will send you the agreement signed on behalf of the corporation the next thing from the enclosed list of solicitors who are prepared to ask for you and advise you on the purchase please let me know the name of the firm that you select as soon as possible end of quote of the letter Lord let me proceeded as follows and close but that letter was a form headed city of Manchester our agreement for sale of council house the corporation has filled in various details such as the name of the purchaser the address of their property the price the mortgage amount and the monthly repayments please take note of this very warm because this it was draw the line between Torah and Manchester City Council and Gibson and Manchester City Council and Gibson the plaintiff only filled the form and returned it there was no response from the council over here when Storer applied the council has responded and we are being told by lordanin that when they responded the council mentioned that if you will sign the agreement and return it to me I will send you the agreement signed on behalf of the corporation elections so at this point we see one difference between Torah and Gibson and Gibson as soon as the application was made there was no communication from the corporation and garments in hands in this case after the application was made there is a responsible says that if you will sign the agreement and return it to me I will send you the agreement signed on behalf of the corporation Exchange not only that when the corporation were also writing to store the field in various details such as name of purchase address of the property the price the mortgage amount and monthly repayments there was this item less blank that's when your tenancy ceases and mortgage requirements recommends followed by these losses Mr storage field in that form filled in the name of the solicitors he signed the form himself and returned it on March 20 1971. so he had done everything which he had to do to burn himself to purchase the property and I'm quoting from London well let me says Mr Turner feel that form he filled in the name of the solicitors he signed the form himself and retained it on March 20 1971. so he had done everything which he had to do to bind himself to purchase the property the only thing less blank or the date when the tenant is seized the cell would have gone through no doubts within a short time but for the cooperation and the town collects office being so pressed the housing manager passed a note to the town collector destiny that is still be completed with effects from Monday 22nd on Monday April 12th but nothing more was done before the election which was dead change of control in the corporation the town collect staff were apparently overworked and did not deal with the matter in time then in May 1971 there was the election in July 1971 the corporation under the new control resolved that there be that there were to be no more sales to council tenants by the cooperation recognized that they had to go on with cases where the corporation were legally bound thereupon declare who wrote to Mr storage another tenant in life situation in another statement as contracts have not been formally exchanged in this case I am unable to proceed with the proposed sale the tenant took the advice of the lawyers of habibs and go someone to interactive advice they were advised that there was a binding contract even though former contracts are not the next changes so this case of Mr storage has come as a test for Manchester population it is to decide whether or not exchange is necessary in order to form a concluded contract where parties are in for a sale subjects to contract that means as a rule that there is no binding contracts until the contracts are still have been formally exchanged but why there is no agreement subject to contracts the only question is whether a contract has been concluded the corporation put forward to the tenants a simple form of agreement the very object was to dispense with legal formalities one of the formalities exchange of contracts was quite unnecessary the contract was concluded by offer and acceptance the offer was contained in a letter of March 9 in which the town click set and I quote I enclosed the agreement for sale if you will sign the agreement and return it to me I will send you the agreement sign on behalf of the corporation electage the acceptance was made when Mr storage did Steve signed it as he did everything it as he did on March 20th it was then that a contract was concluded the town click was then bound to send back the agreement signed on behalf of the corporation the agreement was concluded on Mr storage acceptance it was a dependent on the subsequent Exchange I appreciate that there was one space in the form which was that blank it was number seven for the date when Eternal diseases that blank did not mean there was no concluded contracts it was left blank simply for administrative convenience so here the filling in of that date was just a matter of administrative tidying up to be filled in by the time click with a suitable date for the change over the date on which the story sees to be a tenant and become a purchaser and further point was taken it was said that the town clerk had not actually signed the form of agreement no matter he has signed a letter of March 1971 and that was sufficient it was a note or memorandum sufficient to satisfy the statutes the formula point was this Mr father said that the town collect did not intend to be bound by the letter of March 1971. he intended that the corporation should not be bound except on Exchange there's nothing in this point in contract you do not look into the actual intent in a man's mind you look at what he said and did a contract is formed when there is to all outward appearances a contract and man cannot get out of the corner by saying I do not intend to contract if by his words he has done so his intention is to be found only in the outward experience which his letters can be if they show a concluded contract that is enough it seems to me that the dad was quite right in holding that there was a binding contract in this case even though there was no Exchange it is a proper case for special performance and I would dismiss that view end of quote of London indicate of Torah versus Manchester City Council now at those points it is possible for us at this point it's not got the distinction between the case of Gibson versus Manchester City Council and Story versus Manchester City Council and Griffin and given the letter from the council stated that they may be prepared to sell at standard prices that if you would like to make a formal application to buy please complete the enclosed application form and return it to me as possible so in Gibson the council was inviting the tenant to make the offer and when the tenants completed the offer and returned it there was no communication about price there was no communication about this nothing and then there was political change of governance that is why in Gibson we saw that there were some more important terms that were less for negotiation more important than the price and things like that so in that instance the communication by the council would amount to an invitation to treat because there were a lot of terms left for negotiation and the application form filled by Gibson would amount to the offer which was not accepted before the change of governments but in store in store prices have been filled in by the council the only thing that was good was what date and when it was supposed to commence when he was used to be a tenant and when the brothers will begin it means that all important things have been filled in there was nothing important less for nego station so not only mentioned that the president had filled in various details such as name of purchaser address of property the price mortgage amount and the monthly repayments so in that instance it is very clear what a decision is and so in store there was nothing important less for negotiation that is why the course concluded that they have been abandoned contracts and therefore the council had to go ahead and sell the house to the tenants so these two places draw the distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat it is important at this point to rehash the wealth of Dr ban JSC in NTS versus entry why are the limited Justice explain what the amounts one offer that is that indicating in words or by conduct that an offer wrong would be bad the moment of a real communicate is acceptance foreign ly the offer has to be definite and final and must leave it must not leave significant terms hoping for further negotiation by significance here we mean times that are essential to the bargain contemplated so if you look at that the bank statement in context and you even apply it to the gifting case you can see in the Gibson case because it's like price then there can be no contracts but in the thorough case because nothing was less further for negotiation all material things have been concluded name of purchaser price everything has been concluded that is why the cops were founded very easy to hold that there was a valid contracts so by way of recap in this lecture we know what the definition of an offer is according to that a bar in nt83 versus Ng but it is an indication invested by conduct man of Aurora that he or she is prepared to be bound by the contracts in the times expressed in the offer if the offer we communicate to the Pharaoh his or her acceptance to those things and we have been told in the that the main thing that distinguishes and offer from an Evidence to treat is that the invitation to treat lacks that finality would give the other party to whom it is made to convert it into a contract remember we mentioned that as for an invitation to treat it is the one that would rather invite the other party to make the offer and on this point we refer to TT on contracts where it mentions that a communication by which a party is invited to make an offer is commonly called an irritation to treat so the letter sent by the Manchester City Council to Gibson that letter was inviting Gibson that if you wish to make a formal application fill this from and bring it so that letter that was coming from the Manchester City Corporation it amounted to an invitation to treat and that is why the form that was fought by Gibson amounted to the offer which was not accepted by the council so remember teaching your contracts that a communication by which a party is invited to make an offer it's called an invitation to treat and then now you can apply this to the case of Gibson and also the case of scholar and understand why in that case the course comes through the letters from the council to amount to Univision to treat in that particular context so remember the case of NTS versus entry that the bank GSC in the definition of an offer remember the case of Gibson and Manchester City Council on how the court construed the letters from the council to be an invitation to treat and juxtaposed that to the gate of Torah versus Manchester City Council and see why in that case would have got concluded that they have been a valid contracts I remember what we said in teaching on contracts that a communication by which a party is invited to make an offer is called an invitation to treat having explained what an offer is and having distinguished it from when we begin to treat our next lecture shall be identified and explain the different forms that we can have if you don't need to treat there are different different forms of everything to treat so for the different forms of everything to treat we'll be looking at things like display or boost as a returning to trick that's why you disabled for sale did not amount to an offer but they are not inviting people to make an offer we look at action sales that they are not offered by the other invitation to treat who look attenders we can also look at advertisement of goals in the newspaper we shall also look at circulation of Priceless or paper loss these are different forms of the evidence but for the purpose of this letter we are sought to equip you with the legal knowledge so that you can distinguish offer from an invitation to tricks so from here whenever you see an offer you know that the bar said you must leave nothing further for negotiation it must be definite it must be final it must have the capability of being converted into a contract a moments that a party communicates acceptance now that you know this one you know what evidence our next lecture which I go and look at the different categories of invitation to treat so this is where we shall wrap up with our discussion on offsite and how an offer can be distinguished from an invitation to treats always remember the definition versus entry and remember what city on contracts you said about if you don't need to treat and remember the two cases with the same defendant Gibson and Manchester City Council and Stonewall versus Manchester City Council in our next lecture we shall go ahead and look at the different forms of invitation to treat this is where we shall wrap up on this particular lecture thank you