A similar holding was made in Harris 3 where the plaintiff lost his claims for loss of time and expense despite withdrawal of the advertised furniture from sale.
An exception is the Carlill case 4 where an advertisement sufficiently constituted an offer to sell because it was a unilateral offer to sell to the world, which can be accepted by satisfying the condition required. Also, purchase of the product was enough consideration and the intent to be legally bound was proven by the deposit of £1000 to the Bank.
Thus, Chantelle’s advertisement is just an invitation to treat. Moreover, the exchange between Ben and Chantelle over the telephone lacks certainty and merely involves a request for information similar to Stevenson v McLean 5 where it a request for information was held not a counteroffer. Ben’s offer is only constituted the moment he wrote to Chantelle but such an offer is subject to acceptance, which did not happen. Felthouse v Bindley 6 held that acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. The lack of valid acceptance here militates against the forming of a valid