‘Distinguish between an offer and an invitation to treat.

If you're still doing this, go through a list of various different basic contractual situations and determine whether they are an offer or invitation to treat, e.g. self-service shops; advertisements in the newspaper; things placed in a shop window. Go through some cases (you will find these on very basic contract law websites or in introductory textbooks) and see if you can find examples of each (some will have examples of both offer and ITT. Look up Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball as an example of a fairly unusual case). Then see if you can give a brief insight into what the difference is between the two - think of the characteristics of an offer in comparison to those of an ITT. Here's a quick suggestion: an offer is generally quite detailed and specific; an invitation to treat not so much. This was the distinction in Carlill.

EDIT: Ookay this thread is from 2008. Well, I'll keep my reply up anyway!

Following s.335 Gambling Act 2005, gambling contracts are enforceable.

OK, thanks for that - so I go back to my original question......

Surely Ladbrokes are subject to the same rules of offer and acceptance which make a contract ??

They clearly stated on National TV "YOU WILL GET YOUR MONEY BACK EVEN IF THE HORSE LOSES !!"

But this is not the case, and they are now hiding behind their Terms and Conditions - which were not mentioned at the time the offer was made.

Right I think I understand what the differences are but I am a little confused with adverts as many places it says there are expections all to do this whether it is vauge or not. I have the following question

Question in brief
The bank of Calendonia has an advertisement & posters up in the branch inviting students to open a bank account before the end of October and receive a new mp3 player.
Adrian goes to open an account on 30/09 and does not receive mp3 player. He is told that there is none left in stock and that he won’t receive one.

What is Adrian’s legal position?

would this be an invitation to treat or an offer? I dont know

The Distinction Between An Offer And An Invitation To Treat Is Often Hard To Draw As It Depends On The Elusive Criterion Of Intention. But There Are Certain Stereotyped Situations That The Distinction Is Determined By Rules Of Law" Introduction An offer is made when a person shows a willingness to enter into a legally binding contract. An invitation to treat (I.T.T) is merely a supply of information to tempt a person into making an offer. However the distinction between the two can often be misleading and ultimately misinterpreted. When misinterpretations and complications occur then it is down to the courts to decide and to distinguish between the two terms, so a person is not led into a binding contract of which he does not want to be a part of, (Harvey V Facey [1893] A.C 552.) but is merely supplying information to which an offer is to be made. Offers and Invitations...

----------------

An invitation to treat is an action inviting other parties to make an offer to form a contract. These actions may sometimes appear to be offers themselves, and the difference can sometimes be difficult to determine. The distinction is important because accepting an offer creates a binding contract while "accepting" an invitation to treat is actually making an offer.

Advertisements are usually invitations to treat, which allows sellers to refuse to sell products at prices mistakenly marked. Advertisements can also be considered offers in some specific cases. Auctions are sometimes invitations to treat which allows the seller to accept bids and choose which to accept. However, if the seller states that there is no reserve price or the reserve price has been met, the auction will be considered an offer accepted by the highest bidder.


hope this helps ! not much use i'm sure just bits and bobs i've acquired

p.s. love the plato and socrates cartoon