In order to analyse the preceding statement, we will compare an offer and an invitation to treat.

Let's
begin by defining the terms Offer and Invitation to treat.

A valid contract in the eyes of the law is formed when one party makes an offer, which is essentially a
statement of offeror's willingness to enter into a contract with any suitor. The recipient of an offer who
accepts the terms specified in the offer. In contrast, an invitation to treat is nothing more than an
indication of willingness to enter into a contract. This includes the fact that once the parties begin
negotiating, a contract will be formed. The general concept of offeror and offeree is that offeror is the
party that submits a bid and offeree is the party that accepts the proposal, thereby forming a legally
binding contract. Once a contract enters into force, both parties are obligated to abide by its terms, and
any party that violates them commits a breach of contract, allowing the innocent party to suit for
damages or terminate the contract. In the case of Wilkie v. London Transport, it was determined that an
offer can be made either orally or in writing; all that is required is that the parties have a mutual
understanding of the terms and that the offer was made with the intent to form a contract.

Now that we have covered the definition and fundamentals of offer and invitation to a treat, we will
examine the various categories of offer. In contract law, there are two categories of offers, the unilateral
offer and the bilateral offer. The fundamental distinction between the two is that one is made
specifically to an individual (bilateral) and the other is open to all individuals (unilateral). To be more
precise about the two categories, it is necessary to analyse each separately. Unilateral offer, as
described above, is not made specifically to anyone; therefore, displaying products for sale outside or
inside a store is a unilateral offer, as is distributing advertisements in newspapers and holding tenders
and auctions. In turn, each of these examples falls under the category of Invitation to treat. To
demonstrate my point, the precedent of Carlill v. Carbolic Company should be cited as an illustration of
a unilateral offer. It was determined that the company's advertisement was open to all individuals, and
that the person who fulfilled all of the steps outlined in the advertisement was eligible to claim the 100
pounds, and the claimant did receive the money. The definitions of offer and invitation to treat have
already been discussed; however, the main differences between the two must be noted with great care.
An invitation to treat is made with the intent to negotiate and the hope that a contract will be formed at
a later time. However, an offer is the offeror's direct statement of intent to enter into a contract with
the offeree. If the offeree accepts the offer, a valid contract is formed. As an example of an offer, I would
like to cite the case Gibson v. MCC, in which it was determined that MCC made a valid offer, and by
defendant's acceptance of that offer, a valid contract was established between the two parties, and the
council was ordered to sell the house to the claimant. As an example of invitation to treat, we have the
case of Storer v. MCC, in which it was ruled that the council did not make an expression of negotiation
because the word'may be' indicated that it was not an offer but solely an invitation, and thus no valid
contract was formed between the parties.

Returning to the exhibition of goods, a number of cases demonstrate that display was merely an
invitation to treat, as determined in Fisher v. Bell, where the display of items for sale was not an offer.
This case can also be used to demonstrate that the merchant has the right to sell his item to the highest
bidder. In the case of Chapelton v. Barry Urban, the fact that items obviously marked with price tags are
regarded as an offer would be ruled out by the fact that they are clearly marked with price tags. Moving
on to advertising, the precedent of Partridge v. Crittenden established that advertising is nothing more
than an invitation to treat. This authority was bolstered further by Lord Parker, who believed that if an
advertisement was deemed an offer, the seller would eventually run out of stock and be sued for breach
of contract. This opinion was not given much weight, as it is understood that the offer is valid while
supplies last. Regarding the issue of supply of information, it is necessary to cite Harvey v. Facey, in
which the court ruled that supply of information was solely an invitation to treat, as the defendant had
no intention of making an offer when he sent the telegram to the claimant.