Match List I (Case) with List II (Principle of Contract Law): List IList II A. Tinn v. Hoffman & Co. I.…

Each landmark case illustrates a foundational rule distinguishing an offer from other communications in contract law. In Tinn v. Hoffman & Co. (1873), it was held that two simultaneous identical cross-offers made in ignorance of each other do not constitute a binding contract (A-III). In Fisher v. Bell (1961), the display of goods with a price tag in a shop window was held to be merely an invitation to treat and not an offer for sale (B-I). In Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893), an advertisement offering a reward to anyone who performed the stipulated conditions was held to be a valid general offer made to the public at large (C-II), while in Harvey v. Facey (1893), the Privy Council held that merely quoting the lowest price of property in response to an inquiry is a quotation of price and not an offer to sell (D-IV).