Goldthorpe responded to Logan's newspaper ad which claimed "Results Guaranteed" to remove hair via electrolysis. Goldthorpe was met by a nurse, who told her face could be definitely "cleared" with no physical exam. Despite the treatment the hair on her face continued to grow and she brought suit. Her claim failed at the lower court and she appealed.
- Was there a contract between Logan and Goldthorpe?
Appeal allowed, Goldthorpe awarded the cost of the treatment and $100 for loss of expectation.
The defendants were careless in their promise – they did not suggest that "results may vary" – they suggested no exceptions for their guarantees. The court states that the defendant pandered to the weakness of a distressed client; the strong cannot be allowed to prey on the weakness of the weak, the gullible, or the misguided. There is an allusion to inequality in bargaining powers. This was an offer made to the public, which the plaintiff accepted by submitting to the procedure. However, the defendant did not live up to the terms of their offer and thus breached the contract. Perhaps they made the offer negligently, however either way they breached their contractual obligations. Laidlaw in writing the decision follows a similar approach to that in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co..
- Look to words and actions to determine if a contract is made.
- An advertisement constitutes an offer that can be accepted on the terms it proffered.
- The offeror bears the risk of extravagant promises.
- No offer is valid without consideration.