ITT's: The distinction between an Offer and an ITT is an important one, but isn't always easy to distinguish between. Even if the parties have reached an agreement on the terms of the contract, they may decide the language they used is inappropriate to constitute an Offer, therefore is better to address it as an ITT.
In "Gibson v Manchester City Council", Mr Gibson, was a tenant of a house owned by Manchester City Council. He received a letter which indicated a price stating that they may "be prepared to sell" the house to him. He then filled out a form (this was the "Offer"). However, the Labour party came into power and revoked the sale of the council houses.
Held: The council therefore rejected it as the letter stated they "may be prepared to sell". Mr Gibson made an offer, but the council didn't accept it. Therefore, no contract existed and it was concluded as being an ITT and not an Offer.
In the later case of "Storer v Manchester City Council", the facts were very similar to Gibson, only the document, that Mr. Storer signed and returned was "sufficinetly definite" to amount as an Offer.
The concept of shops displaying goods protects the seller as stated above. This has been further reinforced by Winfield who said that "shops are places for bargaining and not compulsory sales". This can allow sellers to freely negotiate with who they want to, and this supports the power to contract with whoever they wish.