HO TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING TECHNOLOGY

BUILDING LAW I
BUT 301
LEVEL 300 (HND 3)
GROUP 7 MEMBERS
NAMES INDEX NO. SIGNATURE
1. AYIHOU FIRMIN ATSU 0320050083
2. ADORKPA NICHOLAS 0320050111
3. KALEKU PRINCE 0320050118
4. ABDULAI SULEMANA 0320050028
5. AMAMU DAVID 0320050077
6. ADJIN EMMANUEL 0320050104
7. OPOKU DESMOND 0320050044
8. MADUGU K. RIGHTEOUS 0320050090
9. TORGORMEY AGBELI 0320050087
10.DZORDZINU CONRALD 0320050016

OCTOBER 26TH, 2022

Differentiate between an offer and invitation to treat using
relevant case laws.
Generally, an offer is a statement or conduct indicating a willingness to contract on terms
stated or on terms which can reasonably be inferred from conduct and made the intention that
it will become binding as soon as it is accepted. Whilst, an invitation to treats are preliminary
activities, which usually are only intended to solicit offers from potential customers and are
not deemed by the law as contractual offers in themselves, capable of being converted into a
contract upon acceptance but mere invitations to the public to make offers. Advertisements
are usually an invitation to treat.

According to the case of NTHC V. ANTWI, an Offer has to be definite and final and must
not leave the significant terms open for further negotiation. However, an invitation to treat is
not definite, final and always leaves significant terms open for further negotiations. By
significant terms, we mean terms that are essential to the bargain contemplated.

It is important to emphasize the preposition 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.

If a communication during negotiations is not the final expression of alleged offeror′s

willingness to be bound, it may be interpreted as an invitation to other party to use it as a
basis for formulating a proposal emanating from him or her that definite enough to qualify as
an offer.

An invitation to treat is thus that to be distinguished from an offer on the basis of the proposal
′s lack of an essential characteristic of an offer, namely, its finality which gives a capacity to
the offeree to transform the offer into a contract by the mere communication of his or her
assent to its terms.

Last but not the least, in the case of GIBSON V. MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL is an
illustrative of a communication during the negotiations which was not definite and final
enough to be treated as an offer and therefore was rightly categorized as an invitation to treat.