L4. Agreement: Adverts & Unilateral Offers
Leading Cases:
Partridge v Crittenden (1968)
Adverts.
• About rare birds.
There was a notice which read bramble finch cocks and hens 25 shillings
each and the advert was placed in the classified advertisement pages of a
periodical magazine for bird experts.
The defendant, who is Mr Partridge, was charged with the offence of
unlawfully offering for sale, a wild live bird contrary to Section Six of the
Protection of Birds Act 1954.
> Similar to previous cases:
• Pharmaceutical Society v Boots
• Fisher v Bell
~ All displayed ITT on shelves.
The courts held the case that generally speaking an advertisement was
merely an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale. (This is all general rule
for adverts. If you see an advert, generally speaking it will be an ITT
not an offer.)
The rationale for this decision is known as the limited stocks argument and
that is that whoever advertises the goods will only have a limited supply of
the goods they’re trying to sell. So if the goods were designated as a legal
offer then the offeror (the advertiser) will always be in breach of contract.
If they have insufficient supplies to meet all the purported acceptances.
(Limited Stocks Argument).
Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)
• Most famous contract case
• This case is about an advertisement.
The carbolic smoke ball company had developed these smoke balls type of
medicine and the idea was that if you used them you would not catch a flu.
They offered to pay £100 to any person who used their smoke balls in the
specified manner but who nevertheless still contracted influenza, so the flu.
The defendants also said ‘we’re so serious about our offer that we’ve
put a £1000 in a named bank yet to really demonstrate all sincerity
and the fact that our product really works.’
On the faith of this advertisement, Mrs Carlil bought these smoke balls used
it in the manner prescribed but nevertheless caught the flu.
She wrote to the carbolic company and claimed the £100 from them. In
response, the company came up with several arguments.
> Their first one was that the promise to pay £100 was a mere puff. Mere
Puff is a legal term and it means advertising exaggeration. They said
Leading Cases:
Partridge v Crittenden (1968)
Adverts.
• About rare birds.
There was a notice which read bramble finch cocks and hens 25 shillings
each and the advert was placed in the classified advertisement pages of a
periodical magazine for bird experts.
The defendant, who is Mr Partridge, was charged with the offence of
unlawfully offering for sale, a wild live bird contrary to Section Six of the
Protection of Birds Act 1954.
> Similar to previous cases:
• Pharmaceutical Society v Boots
• Fisher v Bell
~ All displayed ITT on shelves.
The courts held the case that generally speaking an advertisement was
merely an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale. (This is all general rule
for adverts. If you see an advert, generally speaking it will be an ITT
not an offer.)
The rationale for this decision is known as the limited stocks argument and
that is that whoever advertises the goods will only have a limited supply of
the goods they’re trying to sell. So if the goods were designated as a legal
offer then the offeror (the advertiser) will always be in breach of contract.
If they have insufficient supplies to meet all the purported acceptances.
(Limited Stocks Argument).
Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)
• Most famous contract case
• This case is about an advertisement.
The carbolic smoke ball company had developed these smoke balls type of
medicine and the idea was that if you used them you would not catch a flu.
They offered to pay £100 to any person who used their smoke balls in the
specified manner but who nevertheless still contracted influenza, so the flu.
The defendants also said ‘we’re so serious about our offer that we’ve
put a £1000 in a named bank yet to really demonstrate all sincerity
and the fact that our product really works.’
On the faith of this advertisement, Mrs Carlil bought these smoke balls used
it in the manner prescribed but nevertheless caught the flu.
She wrote to the carbolic company and claimed the £100 from them. In
response, the company came up with several arguments.
> Their first one was that the promise to pay £100 was a mere puff. Mere
Puff is a legal term and it means advertising exaggeration. They said
