to sue or not to sue?

One day, Jay saw a banner hanging in front of her favorite cassette store outlet in Alamanda which reads: " BIG SALES! LATEST TOO PHAT'S ALBUM IS UP FOR GRABS WITH 50% DISCOUNT! LIMITED STOCK! HURRY, HURRY, HURRY!". After reading it, Jay immediately jumped in the outlet and said she wanted that album at the said discounted price. But to her disappointment, the shop owner said that the cassette is now sold at normal price. Can Jay sue the shop owner for breach of contract? Discuss according to Contracts Act 1950 and relevant decided cases(s).

The issue at stake here is whether an offer existed between Jay and the store owner. At a glance, it may have seemed like the owner had offered to sell the album at half the retail price, and Jay accepted the offer. However, the banner displayed was just an invitation to treat, or invitatio ad offerendum in Latin. It simply means that the owner who was making an invitation to treat does not intend to be bound as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom the statement is addressed. Invitation to treat includes the display of goods; the advertisement of a price or an auction; and an invitation for tenders (or competitive bids. Therefore, Jay is not in a position to sue as there was no legally binding agreement between her and the owner. Although she did offer to purchase the album, the owner did not accept. In order for a contract to be legal and valid, it must have offer [Section 2(a) of Contract Act] and acceptance [Section 2(b) of Contract Act] which the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified [Section 7(a) of Contract Act].

A similar case as the above would be Partidge v Crittenden (1968). It was held that where the appellant advertised to sell wild birds, was not offering to sell them. The judge commented that it did not make 'business sense' for advertisements to be offers, as the person making the advertisement may find himself in a situation where he would be contractually obliged to sell more goods than he actually owned.