In relation to Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421, the court held that "the advertisement constituted an invitation to treat and not to offer” (Turner, et al., 2015) because parties interested in creating a legally binding contract must respond with an offer; Using this information and the previous case, it is fair to assume that both cases would have the same outcome if brought before the court. Jin Ho attempted to use the postal acceptance rule with the letter placed in the mailbox when he was unable to reach Narvin at his home. This will not be held by a court as there is a need to discuss whether or not postal regulation will be used to accept the offer, it will also not be held as there has been no agreement by Narvin to create a binding contract legal authority. Jin Ho offered an option for Narvin to keep the phone until Jin Ho inspected it; however, because the $50 option never changed hands, a court would not deem it sufficient for a legally binding decision.