According to Gibson and Fraser (2012), an agreement is an end of the negotiating process which is intended to be bound under Contract Law (Commenweath Law). The contract cannot be form unless the agreement is reached by the parties. The “traditional approach” of agreement content of three components. There are a minimum of two parties, an offer and an acceptance.
First, in order to form an agreement, an offer has to be made by one party “offeror” to another party “offeree”. Then an acceptance is me by offeree to offeror. As a result, an agreement is reached. This traditional approach is a useful tool to determine the time, place and content of the agreement. There are, however, some cases in which an offer and an acceptance are hardly located. (Gibson v Manchester City Council  1 WLR 520 (CA))
There are some statements or actions which are not an offer such as an invitation to treat, requests for information and statement of intention. The term of an “invitation to treat” is regarding to the expression of willingness to start an offer and acceptance process. It never intended to be bound, so it is not an offer (Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd  1 QB 401 (‘Boots cash Chemists’).another statement or action which easily result in misleading to an offer is ‘requests of information’. It is merely a request for information or further information. The party responding for the requests has no intention to be bound by that responds. Therefore, it is not an offer. (Harvey v Facey  AC 552.
As discuss above, an agreement is reached when the ‘traditional approach’ of an agreement is satisfied. It means there is an offer and an acceptance. Take the case of Harvey v Facey  AC 552 as an example, the Privy Council of Jamaica held that there was an requests of information and an offer from the plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant did not make an acceptance in order to responds an offer from the plaintiff. Hence, there was no agreement. Applying to the case of Bruce and John, the first statement was made by Bruce was not an offer but a requests of information. The respond from John, therefore, was merely an information for Bruce. As the facts show that the first offer was made by Bruce as he asked to buy a dish with the price at $40 and received a rejection from John. Then, he made another offer to buy a dish with the original price. John did not take any action to accept the second offer from Bruce. Thus, there is no agreement.
There were no any agreement between Bruce and John as there is not satisfied the ‘traditional approach’ of an agreement as there was an offer but not any acceptance.
2. Issue: in view of all surrounding facts concerning Louisa Reed and her cousin, the following issue identified:
(i) Did her cousin intent to create a binding enforceable agreement in order to allow Louisa to use his premise with the half rent?
(ii) Did they reach a final agreement regarding to the rental of the premise?
(iii) And did her cousin provide a sufficient consideration in order to create the business contract?
There are three essential elements of contract such as an intention, an agreement and a consideration (Gibson and Fraser, 2012)
According to Gibson an Fraser (2012), in order to create an legal enforceable contract, the parties have to intent to create legal relation. It means, if an intention is not present, there can be no contract.
There are two classes of agreements such as non-commercial agreement and commercial agreement. To distinguish whether an agreement is a commercial or non-commercial, the courts use an ‘objective test, based on reasonable person’ to classify an agreement. In non – commercial, the parties do not have any intention to create a legal relation. Thus, there is no contract. However, in some specific cases, for example the case of