Its the Lynx effect

[Josquius]

http://hubpages.com/hub/Man-Sues-Company-Because-Product-Did-Not-Get-Him-the-Girl
Also http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/925734/man-sues-lynx-after-failing-to-get-girl

Usually when an unusual event occurs, one can say only in America or only in New York. Well this time an Indian man sues a grooming company, Lynx because he used the company's products for seven years and did not get the girl. Vaihav Bedi is an Indian and the lawsuit was filed in India for a substantial amount because the law suit claimed that he failed to land a single girl after using the products.

The company that is being sued is the Lynx company and offer male grooming products such as body washes, shampoos, anti-perspirant and hair gels. Lynx marketed as Axe in India advertises its products with sexy women throwing themselves at men when these grooming products are used. These women are usually barely clothed and there are insinuations that if these products are used that these men will get female attention


Bedi claimed that the Lynx company cheated him because the advertisements said that women would be attracted to him. He said that he had been using the products for seven years and have not met any women because of the use of Lynx products. Bedi said, "I used it for seven years but no girl came to me." The statement was from Vaihav Bedi court petition as he has declined to make any public comment about his lawsuit.

Vaihav Bedi is 26 years old and is suing the parent company, Unilever. The court petition from Bedi states that he suffered, "depression and pyschological damage because caused by the lack of any Lynx effect.

The court system in Indian is not taking the lawsuit lightly as would be expected on a case of the nature. The Indian court has ordered forensic tests of the Lynx products of which most of the containers were half used. But the leading litigators in India stated tthat claims of the Lynx products are suppositions. He said that theire is no data that unattractive or unintelligent men do not attract women. The litigator is asking that the case is settled out of court because some of the most "ghoulish" guys have married and dated attractive women.

I must say that I always questioned how they got away with such advertising and wandered whether anyone has ever tried to sue (does it exist in America?). Now we know.

[Barrister]

Bah - it's "mere puffery".  See the Carbolic Smoke Ball case.

[DisturbedPervert]

No idea what Lynx is or why he thought it would get him chicks

[Ed Anger]

No idea what Lynx is or why he thought it would get him chicks

it is Axe here. The sucker deserved it.

[MadImmortalMan]

You still have to leave the house, dude.

[DisturbedPervert]

I have a bottle of Axe.  This guy must have been using it wrong.

[Admiral Yi]

I have a bottle of Axe.  This guy must have been using it wrong.

[Malthus]

Bah - it's "mere puffery".  See the Carbolic Smoke Ball case.

Ah, Carbolic Smoke Ball. Every first year law student's favourite.

I think it was even mentioned in The Paper Chase. 

[Barrister]

Bah - it's "mere puffery".  See the Carbolic Smoke Ball case.

Ah, Carbolic Smoke Ball. Every first year law student's favourite.

I think it was even mentioned in The Paper Chase. 

Indeed.

I had to double check whether Ideo or Faeelin had already mentioned it, since it's such an obvious precedent.

Although I don't know if it get mentioned in US lawschools...

[stjaba]

I didn't read the actual case, but it was excerpted in my contracts casebook as "a venerable case."

But IIRC, I thought the company actually lost the case.

[Barrister]

I didn't read the actual case, but it was excerpted in my contracts casebook as "a venerable case."

But IIRC, I thought the company actually lost the case.

Yes, but the ad in that case was a fair bit more detailed...

[Malthus]

I didn't read the actual case, but it was excerpted in my contracts casebook as "a venerable case."

But IIRC, I thought the company actually lost the case.

Correct. In that case, the unilateral contract was not "mere puffery" since there was evidence that showed the company intended it to be a serious guarantee of effectiveness.

[stjaba]

I didn't read the actual case, but it was excerpted in my contracts casebook as "a venerable case."

But IIRC, I thought the company actually lost the case.

Correct. In that case, the unilateral contract was not "mere puffery" since there was evidence that showed the company intended it to be a serious guarantee of effectiveness.

Oh okay. The context in which the case was looked in my book was whether an offeree must give notice of acceptance. In this case, based on the circumstances of the ad, the need for notice was dispensed with.

[Malthus]

I didn't read the actual case, but it was excerpted in my contracts casebook as "a venerable case."

But IIRC, I thought the company actually lost the case.

Correct. In that case, the unilateral contract was not "mere puffery" since there was evidence that showed the company intended it to be a serious guarantee of effectiveness.

Oh okay. The context in which the case was looked in my book was whether an offeree must give notice of acceptance. In this case, based on the circumstances of the ad, the need for notice was dispensed with.

Yup, it's a leading case on unilateral contracts. Don't need notice of acceptance for those, since buying & using the product = acceptance.

There were as i recall two issues. As you say, one was whether you could have a unilateral contract at all. Having held that you can, the other is whether some statement in an ad is enough to form one - that os, was it meant seriously or was it "mere puffery" insufficient to form a real contract.

The carbolic ad promised a money-back guarantee if the thing didn't cure your cold or whatever (which it didn't, being pure quackery). That was held to be a real unilateral contract and not "puffery".

A body spray attracting girls = obvious puffery.

[DontSayBanana]

http://hubpages.com/hub/Man-Sues-Company-Because-Product-Did-Not-Get-Him-the-Girl
Also http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/925734/man-sues-lynx-after-failing-to-get-girl

Usually when an unusual event occurs, one can say only in America or only in New York. Well this time an Indian man sues a grooming company, Lynx because he used the company's products for seven years and did not get the girl. Vaihav Bedi is an Indian and the lawsuit was filed in India for a substantial amount because the law suit claimed that he failed to land a single girl after using the products.

The company that is being sued is the Lynx company and offer male grooming products such as body washes, shampoos, anti-perspirant and hair gels. Lynx marketed as Axe in India advertises its products with sexy women throwing themselves at men when these grooming products are used. These women are usually barely clothed and there are insinuations that if these products are used that these men will get female attention


Bedi claimed that the Lynx company cheated him because the advertisements said that women would be attracted to him. He said that he had been using the products for seven years and have not met any women because of the use of Lynx products. Bedi said, "I used it for seven years but no girl came to me." The statement was from Vaihav Bedi court petition as he has declined to make any public comment about his lawsuit.

Vaihav Bedi is 26 years old and is suing the parent company, Unilever. The court petition from Bedi states that he suffered, "depression and pyschological damage because caused by the lack of any Lynx effect.

The court system in Indian is not taking the lawsuit lightly as would be expected on a case of the nature. The Indian court has ordered forensic tests of the Lynx products of which most of the containers were half used. But the leading litigators in India stated tthat claims of the Lynx products are suppositions. He said that theire is no data that unattractive or unintelligent men do not attract women. The litigator is asking that the case is settled out of court because some of the most "ghoulish" guys have married and dated attractive women.

I must say that I always questioned how they got away with such advertising and wandered whether anyone has ever tried to sue (does it exist in America?). Now we know.

Axe and its annoying commercials do exist over here. However, we've got precedents that say claims don't have to be true if a reasonable person would conclude they're hyperbole: back in the 90s, Pepsi had a points system where for some ungodly number of points (I wanna say 20 million, but I'm not 100% sure without looking it up), you could win a fighter plane.  A couple of guys teamed up to earn the points and then sued Pepsi when they didn't fork over the jet.  The courts sided with Pepsi and said that since the offer was clearly hyperbole, Pepsi didn't have to make good on an explicit claim.