In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.[1893] 1 QB 256,the court decided that the advertisement:
A) Was only an invitation to treat.
B) Contained clear evidence of an intention to create legal relations.
C) Was presumed not to contain an intention to create legal relations.
D) Was nothing more than an advertising puff.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q13: What is the courts' rationale for presuming
Q14: In which of the following cases did
Q15: In which of the following cases did
Q16: Which of the following is NOT one
Q17: The decision in Jones v Vernon Pools
Q19: Explain the two legal presumptions that assist
Q20: Why was a letter of comfort held
Q21: In Darmanin v Cowan [2010] NSWSC 1118
Q22: It is assumed that a contract of
Q23: Whilst the common law may not consider
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents