Perfect. Thanks a million.
On Oct 9, 12:50 pm, SarahMcC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Something which is so vague that it cannot be intended to have
> contractual status i.e advertisements. The ad in Leonard v Pepsi Co.
> that Pepsi would offer its customers a Harrier jet, which was merely
> intended to be humorous and did not form a part of the contract. You
> could also mention Carlill, as they contested it was a mere sales
> puff, but it was held that the reference to the £1000 could have no
> other function than to persuade potential buyers to be binding if
> accepted. Statements made for the purposes of attracting attention
> i.e. self evident exaggeration , whereas more specific statements such
> as, "If you can find the same holiday at a lower price in a different
> brochure, we will refund you the difference", are likely to be
> binding.
>
> On 9 Oct, 11:21, MD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hey folks,
> > Can someone please tell me what constitutes a 'mere advertising puff'
> > when it comes to Contractual Terms (Q5 April 2007)?
> > I know where a term and a misrepresentation fits in, but I have no
> > idea of the significance of a 'mere advertising puff'.
> > Its probably FE-1 fatigue and I'm missing something obvious.
> > Thanks- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1
Study Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
