Hence it will be equivalent to a contract only when an offeree, in this case, all the people who view the advertisement, shows a final and unqualified acceptance of the terms of the offer. In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co1, the placing of an ad where there was a promise to pay 100 pounds on the fulfillment of certain conditions was held to be an offer because the words of the advertisement showed that there was an intention to be bound if anyone accepted. On the same basis, TGT’s ad will be equivalent to an offer.However, the offer of payment will amount to a contract only if there is a final and unqualified acceptance of the terms of the offer. As McKendrick states, for a contract to be valid, there must be a definite offer mirrored by a definite acceptance.2 The time factor, in this case, is part of the offer, since TGT has specified a definite time and if offeree’s fail to accept the offer within the specified time, it will automatically expire.3 In the case of Joseph, TGT has received his review only after the stipulated time period of the offer, i.e, the 25th has expired. Acceptance will be said to occur when the offeree’s words or conduct can give rise to an objective reference that he/she has assented to the terms offered.4 Therefore, Joseph’s communication of the review to TGT may be deemed to be an acceptance because he is acting in accordance with the requirements of the offer, i.e, preparing a review and sending it to TGT.However, the Courts may not hold TGT liable for paying the 50 pounds to Joseph for his review, the reason being that they did not receive the review in time. According to Lord Denning, no contract will come into existence unless and until the acceptance has been communicated to the offerer5. An offer cannot be accepted by the offeree unless and until the offer is communicated to him/her and silence cannot be construed to be accepted.