180+ Lawyers are online 
Can company be help responsible for misleading advertisement?
05-Jul-2023 (In Consumer Court Law)
Sir, Kindly provide me a valuable suggestion. For the last 2 1/2 years a consumer case is being held at district forum with respect to a misleading advertisement/unfair trade practice by a giant mobile company. During the ad campaign ibid company promised that if anyone proves any network is faster than their network then the company will give them life time mobile bill free. When facts felt contrary, after purchasing and using a dongle, I myself filed a consumer case asking for ibid promise. Now the court as well as opposite party asking for settlement for Rs 12K. Should I accept it or adamant for the promise which company made. Once they are ready for settlement does it mean they are guilty? Can a court order to fulfill the promises in the advertisement so that no one will dare to make such a bogus and unscrupulous advertisement in future? its a fight between row and the refined. Court also asks for settlement and told me that else it will take many years. pl advise. Jai Hind
If you settle for the amount you shall never in your life be able to claim the lifetime offer again.
Atleast ask for 100k ..The company can easily afford.
For more information feel free to have a word with me.
Atleast ask for 100k ..The company can easily afford.
For more information feel free to have a word with me.
Helpful?
Adv. Sahej Uban
Delhi | 500+ Answers
Chat
hello
yes court can order to fulfill the promise that would be bound to the mobile company.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a product called the "smoke ball" which claimed to be a cure for influenza and a number of other diseases. The Company published advertisements claiming that it would pay £100 to anyone who got sick with influenza after using its product according to the instructions set out in the advertisement.
£100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks, according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. £1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter.
Mrs. Carlill saw the advertisement, bought one of the balls and used it three times daily for nearly two months until she contracted the flu on 17 January 1892. She claimed £100 from the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. They ignored two letters from her husband, a solicitor. On a third request for her reward, they replied with an anonymous letter that if it is used properly the company had complete confidence in the smoke ball's efficacy, but "to protect themselves against all fraudulent claims" they would need her to come to their office to use the ball each day and be checked by the secretary. Carlill brought a claim to court. The barristers representing her argued that the advertisement and her reliance on it was a contract between her and the company, and so they ought to pay. The company argued it is not a serious contract
yes court can order to fulfill the promise that would be bound to the mobile company.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a product called the "smoke ball" which claimed to be a cure for influenza and a number of other diseases. The Company published advertisements claiming that it would pay £100 to anyone who got sick with influenza after using its product according to the instructions set out in the advertisement.
£100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks, according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. £1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter.
Mrs. Carlill saw the advertisement, bought one of the balls and used it three times daily for nearly two months until she contracted the flu on 17 January 1892. She claimed £100 from the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. They ignored two letters from her husband, a solicitor. On a third request for her reward, they replied with an anonymous letter that if it is used properly the company had complete confidence in the smoke ball's efficacy, but "to protect themselves against all fraudulent claims" they would need her to come to their office to use the ball each day and be checked by the secretary. Carlill brought a claim to court. The barristers representing her argued that the advertisement and her reliance on it was a contract between her and the company, and so they ought to pay. The company argued it is not a serious contract
Helpful?
Adv. Naresh Kumar
Delhi | 100+ Answers
CONTACT NOW
Disclaimer: The above query and its response is NOT a legal opinion in any way whatsoever as this is based on the information shared by the person posting the query at lawrato.com and has been responded by one of the Divorce Lawyers at lawrato.com to address the specific facts and details.
Connect with top Consumer Court lawyers for your specific legal issue
No Comments! Be the first one to comment.
"lawrato.com has handpicked some of the best Legal Experts in the country to help you get practical Legal Advice & help."
