DISCUSSION - Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]

[Guest]

Would you like me to say that you can take the car back and get a refund?

[Jurgen]

Re: Faulty used car

Well I am trying to just establish if I have any rights here and will be able to get a repair or refund,obviously if it will be withing my rights.
That's why I stated that I wasn't made aware of it at the point of test driving, but only after once I returned to pay for the car and was given the invoice,which only then stated those phrases?

[charitynjw]

Re: Faulty used car

The advert is an invitation to treat (negotiate).....

Not necessarily.
If the wording used in the advertisement is sufficiently clear it may constitute an offer.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]

[Guest]

Re: Faulty used car

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]

Constituted an offer due to the £100 placed in a bank account if anyone would catch the flu

[charitynjw]

Re: Faulty used car

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]

Constituted an offer due to the £100 placed in a bank account if anyone would catch the flu

Not so.
Depositing the £100 was not necessary for the elements of the contract, it was just further demonstration of the sincerity of the offer.

The deposit is called in aid by the advertiser as proof of his sincerity in the matter — that is, the sincerity of his promise to pay this 100l. in the event which he has specified.

Lindley, LJ
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1892/1.html

[Guest]

Re: Faulty used car

Is that your opinion or fact?

[Guest]

Re: Faulty used car

Judgment

See also: Litigation before the judgment in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, represented by H. H. Asquith, lost its argument at the Queen's Bench. It appealed straight away. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the company's arguments and held that there was a fully binding contract for £100 with Mrs Carlill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlil...ll_Co#Judgment


The argument is that the car was an invitation to treat/negotiate so why try and prove me wrong charity

A FULLY BINDING CONTRACT

You stated that it was a sincerity of the offer in post 28 above when the company actually tried to get out of the contract by stating it was a mere puff.

[charitynjw]

Re: Faulty used car

Judgment

See also: Litigation before the judgment in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, represented by H. H. Asquith, lost its argument at the Queen's Bench. It appealed straight away. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the company's arguments and held that there was a fully binding contract for £100 with Mrs Carlill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlil...ll_Co#Judgment


The argument is that the car was an invitation to treat/negotiate
Without sight of the ad it is not possible to say whether it could be determined as an offer, or whether it is an invitation to treat.
As previously stated, the exact wording is important.
so why try and prove me wrong charity
Not trying to prove anything; merely saying that not every so-called 'advert' is merely an invitation to treat.


A FULLY BINDING CONTRACT

You stated that it was a sincerity of the offer in post 28 above when the company actually tried to get out of the contract by stating it was a mere puff.
They tried to use a number of legal arguments; all failed.

####

[Guest]

Re: DISCUSSION - Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]

What do you want to discuss

[Guest]

Re: DISCUSSION - Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]

Moderating my advice now, who are you really?

[charitynjw]

Re: DISCUSSION - Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]

What do you want to discuss

Lol.......I didn't change the thread title.
I'd have probably said 'moot point'!

[Guest]

Re: DISCUSSION - Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]

Lol.......I didn't change the thread title.
I'd have probably said 'moot point'!

Well someone did to protect you lol

[leclerc]

Re: Faulty used car

####

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] I do requests btw. You wanted the exact advert? My pleasure

https://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/carlill.htm

[charitynjw]

Re: Faulty used car

@charitynjw I do requests btw. You wanted the exact advert? My pleasure

https://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/carlill.htm

Thanks, leclerc

Blimey, it cures a lot of stuff, doesn't it?
Mind you, I reckon it's a load of carbolic smokes, myself!

[Kati]

Re: DISCUSSION - Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]

Moderating my advice now, who are you really?

Charity hasn't moderated you ... I have! If you have a problem with that then it is ME you have to talk to.

Well someone did to protect you lol

I'm not protecting anyone apart from any unsuspecting poster who takes this advice at face value. I moved these posts to their own thread (and changed the title accordingly) because they were not pertinent to the topic of the thread they were posted on!
again:

If you have a problem with that then it is ME you have to talk to.