Question 1
A mere puff means a ‘promise made to customer in a business context will not be enforceable if the business can show that the promise was clearly not intended to be taken seriously by customers’ (book). Example an advertisement contains a promise made by car manufacturer that the car has the capability to transform into a robot , this kind of promise will not be legally enforceable by the promise and will not be taken seriously. Case: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893].
The concept of puffing is mostly considered as salesmanship or sales talk that is a statement or a number of statements that consist of opinions that are subjective. The can be identified as being extremely exaggerated (Simpson 2005). On the other hand, misrepresentation …show more content…
Unconscionable conduct may occur due to contract been void where one party has taken advantage unfairly towards other party example case : Blomley v Ryan (1956) CLR 362 (BOOK).
There is a need for having two elements within unconscionability. Both of these element have to be presented for proving the validity of the contract. These are substantive unconscionability and procedural unconscionability (Dobbs 2002). The procedural unconscionability can be presented by inequality within the power of bargain or surprises that are unfair. Substantive unconscionability can be expressed by no justification regarding risks or costs being extremely harsh within a situation, and great disparity within price.
Question …show more content…
Issues arise and different rules have to be considered in case when there is a need of revocation of acceptance by different mode or the offer has been cancelled. However, as per the case provided, no acceptance had been received by Fred from Robert in consideration with the offer of job and the reason why which the message had not been seen by Robert on his number of business mobile does not seem to be valid enough. Law imposes low level of restrictions if there is a presence of a valid reason that could not have been avoided for checking the messages. Also, the contract of employment had not been signed as well. Therefore, the contract had only reached the stage of offer and the offer did not make it up to the stage of acceptance. In consideration with this fact it can be stated that there had not been any legal agreement; hence, there is no legal contract between Robert and
A mere puff means a ‘promise made to customer in a business context will not be enforceable if the business can show that the promise was clearly not intended to be taken seriously by customers’ (book). Example an advertisement contains a promise made by car manufacturer that the car has the capability to transform into a robot , this kind of promise will not be legally enforceable by the promise and will not be taken seriously. Case: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893].
The concept of puffing is mostly considered as salesmanship or sales talk that is a statement or a number of statements that consist of opinions that are subjective. The can be identified as being extremely exaggerated (Simpson 2005). On the other hand, misrepresentation …show more content…
Unconscionable conduct may occur due to contract been void where one party has taken advantage unfairly towards other party example case : Blomley v Ryan (1956) CLR 362 (BOOK).
There is a need for having two elements within unconscionability. Both of these element have to be presented for proving the validity of the contract. These are substantive unconscionability and procedural unconscionability (Dobbs 2002). The procedural unconscionability can be presented by inequality within the power of bargain or surprises that are unfair. Substantive unconscionability can be expressed by no justification regarding risks or costs being extremely harsh within a situation, and great disparity within price.
Question …show more content…
Issues arise and different rules have to be considered in case when there is a need of revocation of acceptance by different mode or the offer has been cancelled. However, as per the case provided, no acceptance had been received by Fred from Robert in consideration with the offer of job and the reason why which the message had not been seen by Robert on his number of business mobile does not seem to be valid enough. Law imposes low level of restrictions if there is a presence of a valid reason that could not have been avoided for checking the messages. Also, the contract of employment had not been signed as well. Therefore, the contract had only reached the stage of offer and the offer did not make it up to the stage of acceptance. In consideration with this fact it can be stated that there had not been any legal agreement; hence, there is no legal contract between Robert and