School of Law, Policing and Forensics
Department of Law
Stoke United, a local football club, wished to promote its image and so the Marketing Manager placed an advertisement in The Sentinel on 1st January 2020 as follows:
This paper contains 5 questions.
Answer ALL questions.
Each question carries 20 marks.
Your word limit is capped at 2,500 in total.
OSCOLA referencing is required.
In January, GreatSmellz Ltd advertised their new ‘Health Cube’ oil diffuser in several health and lifestyle magazines as a cure for anxiety. The advert stated that GreatSmellz promised to pay £900 to anyone who bought and used their product for 3 months (according to instructions) and still felt anxious, or suffered any negative side effects attributable to the product. It added that the Health Cube was perfect for spouses who were worried about their family member’s anxiety.
In June, Michael, a self-employed plumber, read the advertisement in an addition of ‘Fitness Lifestyle’ magazine whilst waiting to see his dentist. Michael had been feeling anxious for the past few months, so he picked up a Health Cube from his local pharmacy on the way home for £69.
In May, GreatSmellz published a withdrawal notice via the local newspaper ‘Stoke News Daily’.
Both Michael and his partner Jess used the product as directed for 3 months. By this time, Michael felt his anxiety had gone. However, he has been feeling increasingly nauseous and dizzy. As a result, he booked an appointment with his GP, who ordered Michael to take time off work to recover. As a result, Michael lost one month of income from his job, as well as a lucrative contract with Parker Hotels Ltd to install toilets in all 10 of their hotels. The results of Michael’s medical tests indicated that the nausea and dizziness were attributable to GreatSmellz’s product ‘Health Cube’.
Jess had not suffered any side effects, but had also not seen a decrease in her anxiety. In fact, her anxiety has been made worse owing to Michael’s ill health and loss of income.
Both Michael and Jess have written to GreatSmellz Ltd claiming the £900 as promised in the advertisement.
In response, GreatSmellz claim:
• The advert was not an offer, it was merely an invitation to treat,
• Even if the advert was an offer, which they do not admit, then it was effectively withdrawn via the local newspaper in May.
• Michael is not entitled to the £900 because his anxiety had gone after using the product.
• Jess cannot claim the £900 as she didn’t purchase the product.
Using your knowledge of statute and case law, answer questions 1-5:
Each question carries 20 marks.
1. Whether there was any offer present, and what factors might indicate it was an offer rather than an invitation to treat, and what type of offer it might be.
2. If the notice was an offer, discuss how Michael might have accepted the offer and provided consideration.
3. With regards to GreatSmellz’s second notice, explain whether this could be deemed an effective revocation.
4. Explain the rules for claiming and calculating any damages that Michael may wish to claim.
5. Explain whether the rules of privity of contract would prevent Jess from taking action against GreatSmellz.