There is a difference between an invitation to treat and an offer; i.e. when an invitation is made it will be an invitation to make an offer. The legal relationship is formed when the conditions of the offer are accepted. If an agreement is reached, when one party decides to withdraw from the contract, they will have breached the contract, i.e. a breach of contract because they did not act according to the agreement. A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties voluntarily intending to create legal obligations between them. In this case, Brad and Alex are the two parties involved in the contract. Alex proposed to Brad to make a contract, so Alex is the offeror and Brad is the offeree. The commercial item of this contract is a £5000 antique gramophone. As per the rule of thumb; when Brad, the host accepts Alex's invitation, it becomes a legally binding contract between these two parties. Acceptance is the offeror's understanding of the terms and conditions and must be unconditional. Acceptance of an offer depends on the communication used by both parties, whether written or oral. In this contract, Alex and Brad used written communication and the offer was that if Brad did not respond to Alex within two weeks he would consider it an acceptance of the offer. Alex's offer did not get a qualified acceptance from Brad, showing that an offer was made between the two parties and therefore Brad can file a lawsuit against Alex. Furthermore, silence cannot be used to force acceptance; therefore in this case Brad's silence cannot be used as acceptance of the offer because the acceptance must be communicated by the recipient. However, no one... in the center of the card... is in a shop window and a note behind the knife read: "Ejector knife - 4 shillings". The defendant was not guilty. The display of the knife amounted only to an invitation to negotiate and not an offer to sell. The accused had therefore not "offered for sale" the offensive weapon. Lord Parker said: 'The display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is simply an invitation to treat. This is in no way an offer to sell, acceptance of which constitutes a contract. This is clearly the general law of the land. The material facts are similar to those of the Jolie case. The shop simply displays the goods for the public to bid on. Jolie made her offer but was rejected by the store. Therefore, Jolie is not in a good legal position to claim a contractual defect since a contract never existed. The store is obliged to accept an offer from any person.