In the case given, Harriet is attempting to sue Gerald on the basis that there is no valid contract between them. To ascertain whether her claim has any basis in fact, we must analyse whether there has been a definite offer by Gerald, and an equally definite acceptance of that offer by Harriet.

Offer

Generally, advertisements are seen as invitations to treats, not offers. This was ascertained in the case of Partridge v Crittenden. However, where the advertisement clearly states that the goods will be sold to a person who pays the required price, it is likely to be held to be an offer. In the case of Gerald and Harriet, Gerald’s advertisement to sell his BMW was specific in that it stated that the BMW would be sold for £35,000 to the first buyer. This differentiates it from advertisements in which goods are merely displayed with their prices– the terms Gerald states are clear that the car would be sold to the first buyer who paid the required price.

Acceptance

If we have accepted that Gerald’s advertisement is an offer, we must now look to Harriet’s reply and whether that is sufficient acceptance. Acceptance must be unconditional and match the terms of the offer exactly (the ‘mirror image’ rule). We must distinguish between an absolute acceptance and a counter offer, keeping in mind that the latter effectively extinguishes the original offer (precedent in Hyde v Wrench).

We must consider Harriet’s reply. She texts that she will ‘definitely buy the car’, which we can consider as sufficient intent to create legal relations. However, she adds a question: whether Gerald might perhaps con