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.

Mrs Smokeapplied the ointment three times daily for only one week (she did not follow the instructions) but continued to have a severe raspy cough after two weeks. 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.

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

Which of the following is correct and relevant to the case above?

(You may select more than one correct answer)

Only select the answers that are relevant to the stated HFS.

Question 5 options:

a. The broad legal ISSUE for this case is whether or not there is a contract formed between Mrs Smoke and the Carlill Cough company, and the main RULE is from the case ofCarlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.[1893] 1 QB 256.

b. The broad legal ISSUE from this caseis related to consideration and the case of Anderson v Glass.

c. The APPLICATION of the RULEinCarlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.[1893] 1 QB 256 will be different from HSF1 because the facts are different in HFS2.

d. The APPLICATION of the RULE inCarlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.[1893] 1 QB 256 will be the same for this case (HFS2) as HSF1.

e. The CONCLUSION will be the same as HSF1 because the facts are exactly the same.

f. The APPLICATION and CONCLUSION will be different to HSF1 because in this case the Carlill Cough company did not place money in a bank account and Mrs Smoke did not take the medicine as instructed.