Josh and Breakout Skincare

641 Words Feb 19th, 2018 3 Pages
Josh and Breakout skincare formed a contract when Josh first purchased a 6- month supply of the product from the company to which they promised that “Breakout skincare is guaranteed to work on teenage skin, if this does not happen we will refund the purchase price and pay you $100.00”, however this was not the case. If Josh can establish that there was a promise made in the advertisement to which he accepted the offer from the company, then the new promise only made a month earlier, advertising that the company was cancelling all previous offers, would not constitute consideration for a new promise, Roscorla v Thomas (1842).

Most advertisements are deemed to be ‘invitations to treat’ rather than offers to the world at large. However, if Josh can establish whether or not there was a contract between him and Breakout skincare upon agreeing to purchasing their product after reading about it, then if the case were to be presented to the court, they would be able to decide whether the advertisement was more than a mere invitation to treat, considering it was a legal offer to the world as it was clearly written as “Breakout skincare is guaranteed to work on teenage skin, if this does not happen we will refund the purchase price and pay you $100.00”, thus willingly entering into legal relations with anyone who accepted the offer such as Josh, Carlill v…

More about Josh and Breakout Skincare

Open Document