|
|
發表於 2012-8-30 09:14:33
|
顯示全部樓層
本帖最後由 life 於 2012-8-30 09:26 編輯
Assumed that it happened in HK, there isn't sufficient info to answer your question. On balance, he would fail for a contract claim for the 1,000,000 141 money.
The situation is a mirror of Carbolic Smoke Ball, very old House of Lords case (1861) upon appeal from the Court of Session of Scotland so the decision was based on contract law. It was held that it was a unlateral contract (one without consideration) for the promised rewards which was accepted in Scots law but not English law. Some Lords in the decision said that there was consideration but on balance it was held that there wasn't. And it has been critized by legal laymen, after 100 years, that the company didn't know the identity of the party at the time of the formation of the contract. An English contract would have been failed of without consideration and uncertaintity as to the party ie the Claimant. But on balance, the defendant Mrs. C was successful in the case. Under English principles, it was held that an offer was made, rather than invitation to treat. It was based upon the intention of the defendant to deposit the money and the definite time of the offer i.e. between the period of buying the product and used the product for 100 days.
In the past years, many similar cases in simialr situation have been held as invitation to treat, including situations with conditions such as "while stocks last".....
In your case of 椰菜花, there would be a problem concerning evidence of dependency of the ad. and as to the possibility of doubt as to compliance of the instructions stated and also the criticisim mentioned as to consideration and uncertainty of party (sufficent of notice) and as to possiblity of lapse of the offer (if considered to be so) after reasonable time (ie when did he find out about the ad).
With the commercial climate nowadys, a contractual claim would, on balance, subject to further info, fail under the laws of HK.
The nationality of the company may also be an issue as the 141 money is not legal tender, thus the claim would not be a quantifiable sum and there may be enforcement problem of a HK court order.
There might be some possible claims under HK legistation as regards false advertisement, defeative product, description etc. under the commercial legislation which we do not have sufficient info to explore. |
|
樓主: lawson.
在線雷達
發表於 2012-9-1 07:26:30
x雲申索梗係唔成功啦
其實果隻药真係用嚟醫果種蔬菜叫"椰菜花"既病...
呢隻药唔係人食架
