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 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
