The advertisement is an invitation to treat the public to offer an indication and benefits, and consumers can be impacted by advertisements when they make purchasing decisions. The definition of an offer is he or she offer an expression of willingness to make a contract to another one under bound some made rules, which there is no including the negotiation. Thus, it has existed a circumstance that advertisements can be an offer.
The first advertisement is an offer. It clearly includes all terms of the membership on offer and prices without negotiation. The second advertisement changes the contents is that only first 20 applicants on 17 June. Because advertisements can make an enduring impression in consumers ' minds, which could cause …show more content…
Abby, Ben, and Connie all have the intention to create a legal relationship with HLG, and HLG has an intention to create a legal relationship for only first 20 applications. However, there are no agreements among them. The consideration is that the application of Abby is conformed to the current offer of HLG, which may have an agreement between two parties. Thus, there is an existence of building a binding contract. The applications of Ben and Connie have not conformed the current offer. There are no existences of building binding contracts. The HLG do not have the obliged to offer to discounts membership for …show more content…
The court may consider the reasonable person whether take the breached duty of care should be satisfied with a probability of occurring harm if without taken, the seriousness of occurring harm, the load of taking preventions, and social utility of the conduct.
The obvious risk consists of the patent and a common knowledge. The malfunctioned treadmill existed a harm for users, and it is a common knowledge among members, who are not new members. All members have a relationship with HLG includes Abby. It existed a duty of care to warn the respondents. However, there is no any warning from HLG. Meanwhile, the risk was foreseeable existence and HLG has a breached of duty of care.
3.0
The breached duty of care must be an essential condition to cause occurring harm. Here, there is a ‘but for’ test for defining causation, which used as ‘but for’ the defendant has a warning for members, the plaintiff could not be suffered injury. Abby has a binding contract with HLG, and she could normally use the treadmills. However, the treadmill was malfunctioned and there is no any warning from HLG. Under this circumstance, the reasonably foreseeable risk is clearly. The causation is
The first advertisement is an offer. It clearly includes all terms of the membership on offer and prices without negotiation. The second advertisement changes the contents is that only first 20 applicants on 17 June. Because advertisements can make an enduring impression in consumers ' minds, which could cause …show more content…
Abby, Ben, and Connie all have the intention to create a legal relationship with HLG, and HLG has an intention to create a legal relationship for only first 20 applications. However, there are no agreements among them. The consideration is that the application of Abby is conformed to the current offer of HLG, which may have an agreement between two parties. Thus, there is an existence of building a binding contract. The applications of Ben and Connie have not conformed the current offer. There are no existences of building binding contracts. The HLG do not have the obliged to offer to discounts membership for …show more content…
The court may consider the reasonable person whether take the breached duty of care should be satisfied with a probability of occurring harm if without taken, the seriousness of occurring harm, the load of taking preventions, and social utility of the conduct.
The obvious risk consists of the patent and a common knowledge. The malfunctioned treadmill existed a harm for users, and it is a common knowledge among members, who are not new members. All members have a relationship with HLG includes Abby. It existed a duty of care to warn the respondents. However, there is no any warning from HLG. Meanwhile, the risk was foreseeable existence and HLG has a breached of duty of care.
3.0
The breached duty of care must be an essential condition to cause occurring harm. Here, there is a ‘but for’ test for defining causation, which used as ‘but for’ the defendant has a warning for members, the plaintiff could not be suffered injury. Abby has a binding contract with HLG, and she could normally use the treadmills. However, the treadmill was malfunctioned and there is no any warning from HLG. Under this circumstance, the reasonably foreseeable risk is clearly. The causation is