1. Invitation to treat can be defined as inviting the public to make an offer.

Invitation to
treat is not an offer because it (offeree) is asking public (offeror) to make an offer.
Invitation of treats can be categorized in 3 types which are display of good,
advertisement and auctions. We just focus on advertisement since the statements deal
with advertisement of Yamaha Piano. Advertisement can be unilateral offer which the
definition is nearly similarity with invitation to treat, offer made to the world or
public. To differentiate it, reference can be made to the case law Carlill V Carbolic
Smoke Ball co . Carbolic Smoke Ball co Ltd advertised that they would offer 100
pound for anyone got influenza after using their product. The plaintiff used their
product but nevertheless contracted influenza. The plaintiff sued them for 100 pound.
Court of Appeal said that Plaintiff was entitled to the 100 pound as she had accepted
the offer from the Carbolic Smoke Ball co Ltd which made to the world at large and
deals with unilateral offer.  Partridge v Crittenden states that the appellant placed an
advertisement in a magazine in order to sell cocks and hens for 25 shilling each. He
was charged with offering for selling a wild bird, contrary to statute, but the High
Court said he must be acquitted. The advertisement was an invitation to treat and not
an offer since there are limited stock and the advertiser could not reasonably intend to
be bound to sell to all those who might accept.

2a) It is an invitation to treat

b) It is an offer

c) It is an offer
3. CARLLIL v CARBOLIC SMOKEBALL Co.1893 QB

A company took out an advertisement undertaking to pay £100 to any person who still fell ill
with flu after taking a new drug as directed. Mrs. Carllil took the drug and still fell ill and she
thus claimed the reward. Further the company had deposited £1000 with a London bank as
evidence of their sincerity. The Company said the advertisement was not an offer but a “mere
puff” and that in any case notification had not been given. The Court said the general rule is
that advertisements are not offers, but in this case, there was a definite offer to anybody who
performed the conditions named in the advertisement. Notification in such cases is not
required. Reward advertisements are therefore offers binding on the offeror if accepted as
required.