Business Law: Contract Law and Misrepresentation

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

BUSINESS LAW1
Question 1
Issue
Whether Peter can bring any legal action against SkinnyMe business in contract law
Rule
The validity of a contract is adjudged on the basis of the exchange of offer and
acceptance between the offeror and the offeree. The offeror makes an offer to the offeree
which he can either choose to accept or reject as per his whims and fancy (McKendrick and
Liu 2015). The acceptance of the offeree signifies his intention to be bound by a legal
relationship with the offeror. However, an offer is different from an invitation to treat,
which is an advertisement or an invitation addressing to people to come forward and make an
offer to negotiate an agreement as seen in the case of Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots
Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1956] EWCA 6. Therefore an advertisement cannot be
treated as an offer except for certain unilateral contracts like the case of Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA 1 where the defendant had advertised that anyone who
contracted influenza using their product shall be compensated; the plaintiff contracted
influenza and asked for a compensated yet was refused by arguing that it was a mere
invitation to treat. The court held that certain invitation to treat as this one shall be considered
to be a unilateral contract (Beale et al. 2019).
Mere puff is also to be demarcated from an offer. Puffery is generally a false praise
that sellers use to allure customers in order to sell their products as held in Newcal
Industries, Inc. v. IKON Office Solutions, 513 F.3d 1038, 1053 and Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1.
Parties may choose to avoid an agreement under certain factors like Mistake which
could be common mistake, mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake. A common mistake refers
to the mistake that both the parties commit over the same thing which makes the agreement

BUSINESS LAW2
void. A mutual mistake refers to the mistake of the parties on different things arising in the
course of the agreement or while it was formed. On the other hand, a unilateral mistake refers
to the mistake made by one of the parties. In such case it becomes difficult for the common
law to provide a remedy. The contract becomes voidable in such cases (Beale et al. 2019).
Application
In the given case, SkinnyMe had put up an advertisement of their diet drink which
they claimed to be conducive for weight loss. Peter took the drink as per direction yet did not
lose as much weight claimed by the company. Here, the advertisement of the company was
an invitation to treat and not an offer as it did not guarantee to be effectively working for
weight loss, even though it had held that the diet drink would make the user loss 15 kilo of
weight and look like a super hero. The company is the inviter in this case and Peter is the one
who accepted the invitation to buy the product.
It is evident that the company’s advertisement pertaining to loss 15 kilo weight and
look like a super hero was a mere puff which was used to attract customers. As discussed
earlier that an act of puffery cannot be enforced under a contractual relation. Therefore, Peter
shall not be able to hold the company liable for not giving a desired result by its product.
In addition, Peter made a unilateral mistake of taking SkinnyMe for a medical weight
loss drug SkinnyPow and consumed the diet drink in the notion of losing weight. Peter is the
one who mistake of confusing the two things for which the contract could be voidable at the
option of the company who had advertised to sell the product. Hence, Peter cannot recover
any loss for the mistake that he made, thereby holding SkinnyMe liable.
Conclusion
Therefore, Peter cannot bring any legal action against SkinnyMe under the law of
contract.
Question 2