IntroductionThe common rules of offer and acceptance must be considered in determining whether Gordon entered into a contract with Ritebuild Ltd before purporting to withdraw his offer.MisrepresentationS' it is established that a misrepresentation was made by Anderson's sales representative, Gordon will be advised of a potential remedy under the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Formation of contract Where a person invites for a particular project, the rule general is that the invitation to tender is an invitation to treat (Spencer v Harding 1870). An invitation to treat is simply an expression of willingness to enter into negotiations which it is hoped will eventually result in the conclusion of a contract. The offer is made by the offerer and acceptance is when the inviter of offers accepts one. An offer is an expression of the willingness to be bound by acceptance of that offer on certain conditions. Gordon invites various local builders to bid for the work to be carried out. Ritebuild Ltd's response to an invitation to tender does not constitute acceptance of an offer but constitutes an offer pursuant to an invitation to tender which may subsequently be accepted or rejected by Gordon. In order to create a binding contract, the parties must express their agreement in a form certain enough for courts to enforce it. The conditions of Ritebuild Ltd are certain and there is an expression of willingness to be bound. In order to have a binding contract, there must be an offer that is accepted before any revocation of that offer. Acceptance is final and unreserved consent to the terms of an offer. Acceptance must be effectively communicated to the offeror, unless the need for communication has been waived, as in......in the middle of the paper software......i-Nosh”. At common law, courts have insisted on precise restitution, but the strictness of this rule is mitigated by the intervention of equity. In equity, a party who can make substantial, but not specific, restitution may terminate the contract if he returns the subject matter of the contract in its modified form and accounts for all profits made from his use of the proceeds, as well as an allowance for any deterioration of the product (Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co. 1878). Gordon cannot return his use of "Easi-Nosh", but he can make a cash payment to Anderson Computers Ltd which will represent his use of "Easi-Nosh" and the contract can be canceled. in the event of a fraudulent misrepresentation, the innocent party may recover damages, whether or not he or she terminates the contract for the tort of deception. Similar