In this scenario, I think the right answer are c, d and f. But the tutor chose c and f. Could you explain please.

Applying theIRACFormula.

Read the followingHFSand apply theIRACformula by answering the following questions.These are part of your ASSESSMENT ONE questions (they will count to 5% of your entire final marks) so only submit them when you are satisfied with your answers.

HFS 1

Mrs Smoke read an advertisement in a magazine about a new health product (Carlill's Cough Ointment) that claimed to 'cure any type of cough within two weeks'.The instructions stated that 'users should apply the ointment three times daily to the throat region', and 'within two weeks the cough will completely disappear'.The advert also claimed it would fully refund the cost of the medicine as well as pay $500 to anyone who followed the instructions and continued to have a cough after a two-week period.The advert also stated that the company had deposited $10,000 with its bank, 'showing sincerity in the matter'.

Mrs Smoke took the ointment three times daily for two weeks as per the instructions but continued to have a severe raspy cough. When she approached the Carlill Cough company to claim a refund and the $500, they refused to give her the money, claiming their advert was a mere puff and an invitation to treat, not an offer.

Advise Mrs Smoke.

(These facts are identical to the previous question)

In advising Mrs Smoke, use the IRAC formula to apply the law to the facts.

Question Three.

Which of the following is a correct and relevant ANALYSIS/APPLICATION of the RULES, relating to the case above?

NB that you may select more than one correct answer.

Only select the APPLICATION that is relevant to the stated HFS.

Question 3 options:

a. The facts of this HFS are almost identical to the case ofPharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd[1952] 2 QB 795.

b, The facts of this HFS are almost identical to the case ofCarlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.[1893] 1 QB 256.

c. Mrs Smoke, like Mrs Carlill, purchased the medicine from the seller based on the advertisement, which evidenced an intention to be bound by contract because of the deposit of monies into a bank account.

d. Mrs Smoke, unlike Mrs Carlill, did not take the medicine as instructed, so on this basis, the facts can be distinguished from that case.

e. Applying the rule of precedent, the court will not follow the decision inCarlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256, and Mrs Smoke will not be able to claim the $500 and receive a refund for the medicine, because a cough is different from the flu.

f. Applying the rule of precedent, the court will follow the decision inCarlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.[1893] 1 QB 256, and Mrs Smoke will be able to claim the $500 and receive a refund for the medicine.