edf40wrjww2CF_PaperMaster:Desc
Relying purely on Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256 and Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists Ltd (1952) 2 QB 795, discuss the strengths and weakness of Neil¡¯s claim the Harley Davidson. Give full reason for your answer and discuss arguments for and against Neil.
The Bike show (defendant) used the Harley Davidson as a simple ¡°gimmick¡°to attract more attention towards the customers. They held no definite promise or seriousness in giving it out as the prize. The advertisement only promoted on the prizes and the ¡°new bike¡±. Creating it to be a vague statement and therefore provides the idea that the advertisement was leaning more towards a proclamation rather than a promise or offer to be bound. The Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company case holds a very similar argument where the advertisement was considered a ¡°mere puff¡± rather than a promise or offer to be bound. Both cases used highly exaggerated remarks about their advertisements and yet a reasonable person would not consider it as an exaggeration and would take the advertisements into serious consideration. Therefore, both cases had stated that they had no intention because a definite promise was not made.
However, although ¡°bike¡± is a very vague statement it was also the only prize singled out of the hundreds to be won, that was written on the advertisement. ¡°You could win a new bike, or one of a hundred prizes.¡± A reasonable person would understand that the bike is the major prize to be won because it is the separated prize. Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company uses a similar argument where wording had been magnified. The disease had not been contracted ¡°using¡± the smoke balls rat ...