The first point that NutriBar Ltd is appealing is whether the advertisement in the posters was an invitation to treat. An invitation to treat is a statement that is made by a party to another party, which indicates that the party is willing to enter into negotiations with the other party, but does not itself create a binding contract.
In this case, the advertisement in the posters stated that NutriBar Ltd would "pay £1000 to anyone who bought and ate a 'NutriBar' every day for at least two weeks and was still exhausted when working a normal 12-hour work shift." This statement does not clearly indicate that NutriBar Ltd was making an offer to enter into a contract. Instead, it could be interpreted as NutriBar Ltd simply inviting people to try their product and see if it worked for them.
The second point that NutriBar Ltd is appealing is whether the exemption clause had been incorporated into the contract. An exemption clause is a clause in a contract that excludes or limits the liability of one of the parties to the contract. In this case, the exemption clause stated that NutriBar Ltd was not liable for any damages that were caused by the use of their product.
In order for an exemption clause to be effective, it must be incorporated into the contract. This means that the parties to the contract must have agreed to the clause, either expressly or impliedly. In this case, there is no evidence that Arinda and Namara agreed to the exemption clause. They did not sign any contract with NutriBar Ltd, and there is no evidence that they were aware of the clause when they purchased the NutriBars.
Therefore, I believe that the Court of Appeal should uphold the decision of the trial judge. The advertisement in the posters was an offer that could not be revoked once performance had begun. The exemption clause had not been incorporated into the contract. As a result, NutriBar Ltd is liable to Arinda and Namara for the damages that they suffered.