The difference between offer and invitation to treat is the significant of this distinction is that, where as an offer will become a contract immediately once it accepted by the person to whom it’s addressed, an invitation to treat is such a stage in negotiations, inviting the other party to make an offer.
In Doncaster project the main contractor send an “invitation to treat” to the windows sub contractor for submitting a price for windows package work, according to case of Fisher V Bell (1961) 1 QB 394(Law notes), the defendant had a flick knife displayed in his shop window, his condemnation was cancelled as goods displayed in his shop are not “offers” in the technical sense but an “invitation to treat”.
In the case of Caril V Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.(Law of contract) The court of appeal held the essential elements of a contract were all present including offer and acceptance, and intention to create a legal bond. In respect of Doncaster project the main contractor send invitation to treat replied by an offer from the windows sub contractor, where offer defined here as “An expression of willingness to contract on specified terms” (Murdoch, 2008). But later the main contractor respond with a counter offer which it negates all original offer and that’s what happened in the case of Hyde V Wrench(1840) (const.contract law) where Hyde replied with a counter offer and in this case the court held that the counter offer cancelled all the previous offer and the plaintiff has no rights to retrieve the original offer and according to “mirror image rule” the offeree becomes the offeror and vice versa.
After the sub contractor received the counter offer he commenced his work on site and this is consider his acceptance to the counter offer, as acceptance defined as “A final and unqualified expressional assent to the terms of an offer.” (Murdoch, 2008) In the case of Davis & Co (shop fitters) ltd V William Old ltd.(Cons.contract mang.) The court held that they had accepted the offer which was contained in the main contractor’s order. The court is only looking for objective point view where the offer and acceptance are proved in Doncaster project and therefore the agreement is held and the contract is formed, where contract can be describe as “Expectation created by binding promises.” (Adriaanse, 2010. P, 19)
Consideration can be defined as “something of value must be given.” (Murdoch, 2008), where in Doncaster project the consideration didn’t move out of its three rules, since the main contractor offered 100,000£ to the sub contractor for the window work package “has a value” and since the consideration is not in the past where the main contractor promise sub contractor to pay the money for him in return of installing and fixing existence window and since the promise is coming out from the promisee, therefore consideration and intention to create a legal bond is applied in Doncaster case, in the case of Williams V Roffey Bros and Nicholls (construction) ltd.(cons.contract mang.) The court of appeal held the amounted to “consideration” from the claimant and the defendant were liable to pay what they had promised.
English law has adopted a complex test based on
1. An item of damage is recoverable if such damage should have been within the contemplation of the actual parties, at the time that they made their contract
2. A damage that is reasonably foreseeable is not too remote.
In case of Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) ltd V Scottish power plc. (1994)(law of contract) the court held that they were not liable for the extra losses regarding demolition or reconstruction, since the claimants hadn’t noticed them that a running pour was essential.
General damages is the damage suffered by the innocent party caused by a breach of contract which cannot be assessed by reference to precise measure and are those which a reasonable person would award having regards for the facts of the case, and rules limiting remoteness of damage