IntroductionThe common rules of offer and acceptance must be taken into account in determining whether Gordon entered into a contract with Ritebuild Ltd before they declared to withdraw their offer.MisrepresentationIf it is established that a misrepresentation has been made by Anderson's sales representative, Gordon will be advised of a potential remedy under the Misrepresentation Act 1967Formation of contractWhen a person invites for a particular project, the general rule is that the tender notice is an invitation to treat (Spencer v Harding 1870). The invitation to treat is simply an expression of the desire to enter into negotiations which will hopefully lead to the conclusion of a contract at a later date. The offer is made by the person making the offer and acceptance occurs when the person making the offer accepts one. An offer is the expression of the willingness to be bound to accept the offer under certain conditions. Gordon invites various local builders to bid on the work to be done. Ritebuild Ltd's response to an invitation to tender is not an acceptance of an offer but is a subsequent offer to an invitation to treat which may then be accepted or rejected by Gordon. To create a binding contract, the parties must express their agreement in a form that is certain enough to be enforced by courts. Ritebuild Ltd's terms are certain and there is an expression of willingness to be bound. To have an enforceable contract there must be an offer that is accepted prior to any revocation of that offer. Acceptance is a final and unconditional assent to the terms of an offer. Acceptance must be effectively communicated to the offeror unless the need for communication has been waived, as in the...... middle of document ...... i-Nosh software”. At common law the courts have insisted on precise restitution, but the harshness of this rule is tempered by the intervention of equity. In fairness, a party who can make a substantial, but not precise, return may withdraw from the contract if he returns the subject matter of the contract in its modified form and accounts for any profits made through his use of the product together with an indemnity for any deterioration of the product (Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co. 1878). Gordon cannot return the use he has made of “Easi-Nosh” but he can make a monetary payment to Anderson Computers Ltd which will represent the use he has made of “Easi-Nosh” and the contract may be terminated. in the event of a fraudulent misrepresentation, the innocent party can obtain damages regardless of whether or not he terminates the contract with fraud. Similar