I wonder who does the Maths …

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

I meant in the sense of an employment contract, a will or even an international treaty. Just trying light heartedly to bring a sense of proportion. I’m sorry if I’ve misread the tone of the thread and should have been taking it more seriously rather than engaging in a bit of banter.

Regards Martin

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

I think it’s just a screw up rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. You should always get someone else to check what you’ve written. You know what it’s meant to say, so you’ll read it that way, someone else might spot the problem.

[Peter Greene]

On Peter Greene Said:

On Martin Kyte Said:

It’s an advert after all not a legal document.

 

Hmm …. interesting concept that an advertisement is not a legal document ….

You might find this of interest, Peter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Co

… it’s a classic of English case-law

MichaelG.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Michael …..very interesting!

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

It’s been sorted.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

I couldn’t help being reminded of this ‘meme’ seen on Facebook today… apologies for the use of the word ‘math’…

[NealebParticipant @nealeb]

I regard it as marketing fluff in the same class as “up to 50% off”. Essentially meaningless.

Remember the definition of the marketing department – “where the rubber meets the sky.”

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Neal

May I recommend that you follow the link that I posted for Peter

MichaelG.

.

Edit: __ also

https://www.model-engineer.co.uk/forums/topic/tell-us-what-youd-like-to-hear-about-you-could-win/

 

[NealebParticipant @nealeb]

Michael – indeed, the “case law” example was very interesting. However, I’m not sure that it would set a precedent for the Mortons ad case. The original ruling said, paraphrasing, that the ad was clear and there was no “small print” which might have modified the terms of the offer. In Morton’s case, and if we read the headline as suggesting that an individual could win £1000, the ad is self-contradictory because where it describes the prizes in glowing terms and not hidden in small print it makes clear what the prizes are.

I did click through to the questionnaire and due to the fact that none of the options were of interest to me, I did not click any of them and eliminated myself from the prize draw. That’s one extra chance for someone else, then! After all, I’m sure that I would have won one…

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

I’m not going to labour it any further, Neal … I’m just pleased to see that Mortons changed the text, and the ‘risk’ has been removed

That may, or may not, have been prompted by my mentioning it ; it doesn’t matter either way.

MichaelG.

[Author]

Posts