was absolute at the time when the agreement was concluded, it will consider the contract void.132 2.3.2.5 Offer and acceptance The rules of offer and acceptance answer several questions as to whether the agreement has been reached, and presuppose that at least two persons are parties to a contract.133 An offer is a firm statement134 of the terms by which the offeror is prepared to be bound.135 The lack of intention to be bound by contractual obligations invalidates the offer.136 While the offeror may prescribe the manner and place of acceptance, or revoke an offer,137 the offeree can accept or reject138 an offer within the prescribed timeframe. 139 An invitation to treat does not amount to an offer.140 The offeree must expressly accept the offer.141 The acceptance is consent by the offeree to be bound by the terms contained in the offer, it must be communicated to the offeror, and until it has been so communicated, no contract is constituted. 142 There can be no contract until the offeror and offeree are ad idem.143 The acceptance of an offer must be clear, unequivocal and unambiguous.144 The principle was expounded in the case of Boerne v Harris,145 and upheld in Saambou Nasionale Bouvereeniging v Friedman,146 which stated that a contract is concluded when the offeror’s offer is unequivocally accepted by the offeree resulting in the creation of consensus between 132 Wessels, JW. (1951) “The law of contract in South Africa,” 2 nd ed, 392. Strydom v Protea Eiendomsagente 1979 (2) SA 296. 134 Christie (2001: 33); Wasmuth v Jacobs 1987 (3) SA 629 at 633. 135 Seddon et al (2002: 103); Hottentots Holland Motors (Pty) Ltd v R 1956 (1) PH K22; Houston v Bletchy 1926 EDL 305 at 311-312; Marco Van der Merwe. (1998) “Cybercontracts.” 6 JBL 138 at 140. 136 Seddon et al (2001: 34). 137 Van der Merwe (2003: 60). 138 Seddon et al (2002: 104). 139 Papadopoulos et al (2012: 45). 140 Crawley v Rex 1909 TS 1105. 141 Christie (2001: 33). 142 Orion Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Ujamaa Investments (Pvt) Ltd 1988 (1) SA 583; Pretorius v Natal South Sea Investment Trust Ltd 1965 (3) SA 410 at 413; National and Overseas Distributors Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board 1958 (2) SA 473; Tel Peda Investigation Bureau (Pty) Ltd v Van Zyl 1965 (4) SA 475 at 478-479; Nonacademic Workers Union v National University of Lesotho available at www.lesotholii.org (accessed 18 April 2015). 143 Christie (2001: 76). 144 Collen v Reitfontein Engineering Works 1948 (1) SA 413 at 429-430; Collier, D. (2008) “E-mail and SMS contracts: lessons from the Labour Court” 16 JBL 20 at 21. 145 Boerne v Harris 1949 (1) SA 793. 146 Saambou Nasionale Bouvereeniging v Friedman 1979 (3) SA 978. 133 15