Consider the following case based on Partridge v Crittenden
Learning Goal: I’m working on a business law multi-part question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.
The alternate facts: Mr. Partridge placed an advertisement in Cage & Aviary Birds magazine containing the words “Bramble finches, £25 each.” The RSPCA brought an action for offering for sale a protected species in contravention of the Amended Protection of Birds Act 1953. The justices found Partridge liable. He appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, which was then reviewed by the House of Lords.
The alternate decision: the holding of liability was reversed. The defendant cannot be held liable for “offering for sale” a bramblefinch as the advertisement constituted an invitation to treat.
Consider the following substantive law questions:
 If the Protection of Birds act were to have read as follows (“it is illegal to offer for sale a protected species as listed this act”and bramble finches were included as such a species), what contradiction, if any, would manifest? Explain.
 If the Protection of Birds act were to have read as follows (“any offering for sale of a protected species as listed this act is prohibited as a matter of public policy incurring civil liability on the part of the offeror”and bramble finches were included as such a species), what contradiction, if any, would manifest? Explain.