NutriBar Ltd were promoting a new energy bar. Their promotional material guaranteed that the 'NutriBar' would give consumers 12-hours enhanced performance levels. They targeted enthusiastic locals who were engaging in DIY to save on building costs in a tough economy.

On posters displayed around Essex, NutriBar Ltd promised to 'pay 1000 to anyone who bought and ate a 'NutriBar' every day for at least two weeks and was still exhausted when working a normal 12-hour work shift'. They added that the 'NutriBar' was 'approved' by Lloyd Food Tech Industries - market leaders in the production of protein and energy shakes.

Arinda and Namara were building an Orangery at home ahead of their big birthday parties in Spring. They purchased and consumed the NutriBars for two weeks as guided. Contrary to the advertisement, they suffered extreme exhaustion resulting in severe disruption of their building works. NutriBar Ltd removed their posters after three weeks of advertising as they were not proving popular in Essex and some health concerns had arisen regarding consumption of their products. The extreme exhaustion forced Arinda and Namara to hire Cowboy Builders to finish the Orangery.

Arinda and Namara sought 50,000 in damages (49,000 paid to Cowboy Builders and 1000 reward).

NutriBar Ltd argued that the mention of the 1000 was a mere invitation to treat. They also argued that inside the NutriBar packets was an exemption clause which excluded any liability.

At trial, Ludmila J found that: The advertisement in the posters was an offer which could not be revoked once performance has begun. The exemption clause had not been incorporated into the contract as reasonable steps were not taken to bring it to claimants' attention. NutriBar Ltd now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:

Moot Points: 1. The advertisement in the posters was an invitation to treat. Even if it was an offer, it has been validly withdrawn by NutriBar Ltd when they removed their posters from Essex.

2. The exemption clause had been incorporated into the contract. Representing Arinda and Namara (Respondents) on appeal. Adhering to OSCOLA, write a list of relevant legal authority and quotations to support your clients on appeal. Make a 10-minute moot video presentation adhering to court language and decorum, make a convincing legal argument to support your clients on appeal.