Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Compose a 1750 words essay on Discuss the following problems in relation to the Scots law of contract. You must refer to primary sources such as judicial precedent and legislation in your answer. Need
Compose a 1750 words essay on Discuss the following problems in relation to the Scots law of contract. You must refer to primary sources such as judicial precedent and legislation in your answer. Needs to be plagiarism free!
The plaintiff being a chief inspector of police force alleged that the defendant had violated this section by offering the knife for sale. It was held that the display of knife in the defendant’s shop was not an offer but an invitation to treat. Hence, no liability arose.
Advertisements are generally regarded as invitation to treat and are not considered as valid offers. However, advertisements can also amount to a general offer which can be accepted by anyone. It depends on the words used in the advertisement whether it is to be treated as an offer or an invitation to treat. In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company2, the defendants made a product called “smoke ball” which was claimed to be a cure for influenza. The defendants published an advertisement in various newspapers in which they claimed to pay £100 to anyone who used their product according to the instructions but still contracted influenza. The plaintiff saw this advertisement and bought one of the balls. She used it three times daily for almost two months but contracted the flu. She claimed £100 from the defendants. The defendants rejected her claim arguing that there was no legally binding contracted between them and the plaintiff. The courts held that the advertisement was not a unilateral offer to the whole world but it was open for acceptance for anyone who fulfilled the condition of using the product according to the instructions. The satisfaction of conditions constituted acceptance of this offer. Further, the purchase and use of the smoke ball constituted good consideration. Therefore, the defendants were held liable to pay £100 to the plaintiff since there was a legally binding contract.
Christina’s advertisement was a unilateral offer to anyone who fulfilled the condition of spending £50 or more in Elegante. Anyone who fulfilled this condition accepted this offer and was entitled to the voucher. David
