Keith Avondale wanted to buy a big screen television set. His choice for a television set is open and negotiable. The price of the television set is a condition for his willingness to acquire one. Keith Avondale saw an advert in a newspaper. Transistor Town advertised their products in the Sunday Newspaper. The advert caught Keith’s attention because the price of the offer was within his reach. The manager of Transistor Town described the content of the adverts as misleading and unfortunate. The sales representative understood Keith’s transactions and directed him to the manager’s office. The manager continued the business after apologizing for the miscommunication in the advert. Keith went to Transistor Town because of the advert in the Sunday Newspaper. Keith threatened to take the matter to court. Keith’s brother is a lawyer.
Matters Arising
The advertisement is an intention of an offer made by Transistor Town and not an agreement. No communication was made between Transistor Town and Keith.
The Rule
The hypothetical case can be tried using natural law. The trial judge may dismiss the case on the grounds of a technicality. The manager described the information as miscommunication by the publisher. The case can be judged from three angles. The judge may compensate Keith by throwing the case in his favour. This would set an example for other firms that sell wrong information as marketing strategy. If the miscommunication between the publisher and Transistor Town was avoidable, who should be blamed? The judge would rule in Keith’s favour if he decides to set aside the judgment for personal reasons. If the error came from the publisher or Transistor Town, then Keith will win the case.
Compare and contrast
The objective of justice is to compensate the victim and punish the offender. The second angle to the case would require a legal process. An agreement must be reached by two parties before it is sealed and signed. The buyer and the seller must agree with the terms and conditions. This means the buyer or the seller must not be forced into agreement or absent during the transaction. Thus, the process of an agreement must be reached by both parties. On this account, the trial judge will throw out the case. Advertisements are not regarded as an agreement to an offer. By this rule, Transistor Town will win the case. The third angle to the case is the intent of Transistor Town. What are the intentions of Transistor Town? How misleading was the advertisement. Was there any effort to correct the mistake? One can establish that the intent to mislead the public was genuine. The manager knew why Keith came to his shop. The sales representative directed Keith to his manager’s office upon arrival. The manager continued his marketing strategy even after he apologized for the miscommunication in the advertisement. The trial judge will rule in Keith’s favour.
This hypothetical case is simple. The trial judge may decide to hold Transistor Town accountable for misleading Keith. The manager used the advertisement as a marketing strategy with the knowledge that statements of an offer or intentions are not bonded agreement. It is an offence to mislead a person no matter the cause. If the trial judge sets the case aside on personal conviction, he must have understood the intentions of Transistor Town.