In the social sciences, unintended consequences are outcomes that are not the ones foreseen and intended by a purposeful action. The term was popularised in the twentieth century by American sociologist Robert K. Merton. Unintended consequences can be grouped into three types: Unexpected benefit: A positive unexpected benefit. Unexpected drawback: An unexpected detriment occurring in addition to the desired effect of the policy. Perverse result: A perverse effect contrary to what was intended; this is sometimes referred to as'backfire'. The idea of unintended consequences dates back at least to John Locke who discussed the unintended consequences of interest rate regulation in his letter to Sir John Somers, Member of Parliament; the idea was discussed by Adam Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment, consequentialism. Sociologist Robert K. Merton popularised this concept in the twentieth century. In "The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action", Merton tried to apply a systematic analysis to the problem of unintended consequences of deliberate acts intended to cause social change.
He emphasized that his term purposive action, " concerned with'conduct' as distinct from'behavior.' That is, with action that involves motives and a choice between various alternatives". Merton's usage included deviations from what Max Weber defined as rational social action: instrumentally rational and value rational. Merton stated that "no blanket statement categorically affirming or denying the practical feasibility of all social planning is warranted." More the law of unintended consequences has come to be used as an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system tends to create unanticipated and undesirable outcomes. Akin to Murphy's law, it is used as a wry or humorous warning against the hubristic belief that humans can control the world around them. Possible causes of unintended consequences include the world's inherent complexity, perverse incentives, human stupidity, self-deception, failure to account for human nature, or other cognitive or emotional biases; as a sub-component of complexity, the chaotic nature of the universe—and its quality of having small insignificant changes with far-reaching effects —applies.
Robert K. Merton listed five possible causes of unanticipated consequences in 1936: Ignorance, making it impossible to anticipate everything, thereby leading to incomplete analysis. Errors in analysis of the problem or following habits that worked in the past but may not apply to the current situation. Immediate interests overriding long-term interests. Basic values which may require or prohibit certain actions if the long-term result might be unfavourable. Self-defeating prophecy, or, the fear of some consequence which drives people to find solutions before the problem occurs, thus the non-occurrence of the problem is not anticipated. In addition to Merton's causes, psychologist Stuart Vyse has noted that groupthink, described by Irving Janis, has been blamed for some decisions that result in unintended consequences; the creation of "no-man's lands" during the Cold War, in places such as the border between Eastern and Western Europe, the Korean Demilitarized Zone, has led to large natural habitats.
The sinking of ships in shallow waters during wartime has created many artificial coral reefs, which can be scientifically valuable and have become an attraction for recreational divers. Retired ships have been purposely sunk in recent years, in an effort to replace coral reefs lost to global warming and other factors. In medicine, most drugs have unintended consequences associated with their use. However, some are beneficial. For instance, aspirin, a pain reliever, is an anticoagulant that can help prevent heart attacks and reduce the severity and damage from thrombotic strokes; the existence of beneficial side effects leads to off-label use—prescription or use of a drug for an unlicensed purpose. Famously, the drug Viagra was developed to lower blood pressure, with its use for treating erectile dysfunction being discovered as a side effect in clinical trials; the implementation of a profanity filter by AOL in 1996 had the unintended consequence of blocking residents of Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, England from creating accounts due to a false positive.
The accidental censorship of innocent language, known as the Scunthorpe problem, has been repeated and documented. The objective of microfinance initiatives is to foster micro-entrepreneurs but an unintended consequence can be informal intermediation: That is, some entrepreneurial borrowers become informal intermediaries between microfinance initiatives and poorer micro-entrepreneurs; those who more qualify for microfinance split loans into smaller credit to poorer borrowers. Informal intermediation ranges from casual intermediaries at the good or benign end of the spectrum to'loan sharks' at the professional and sometimes criminal end of the spectrum. In 1990, the Australian state of Victoria made. While there was a reduction in the number of head injuries, there was an unintended reduction in the number of juvenile cyclists—fewer cyclists lead
Intellectual property is a category of property that includes intangible creations of the human intellect. Intellectual property encompasses two types of rights, it was not until the 19th century that the term "intellectual property" began to be used, not until the late 20th century that it became commonplace in the majority of the world. The main purpose of intellectual property law is to encourage the creation of a large variety of intellectual goods. To achieve this, the law gives people and businesses property rights to the information and intellectual goods they create – for a limited period of time; this gives economic incentive for their creation, because it allows people to profit from the information and intellectual goods they create. These economic incentives are expected to stimulate innovation and contribute to the technological progress of countries, which depends on the extent of protection granted to innovators; the intangible nature of intellectual property presents difficulties when compared with traditional property like land or goods.
Unlike traditional property, intellectual property is "indivisible" – an unlimited number of people can "consume" an intellectual good without it being depleted. Additionally, investments in intellectual goods suffer from problems of appropriation – a landowner can surround their land with a robust fence and hire armed guards to protect it, but a producer of information or an intellectual good can do little to stop their first buyer from replicating it and selling it at a lower price. Balancing rights so that they are strong enough to encourage the creation of intellectual goods but not so strong that they prevent the goods' wide use is the primary focus of modern intellectual property law; the Statute of Monopolies and the British Statute of Anne are seen as the origins of patent law and copyright firmly establishing the concept of intellectual property. "Literary property" was the term predominantly used in the British legal debates of the 1760s and 1770s over the extent to which authors and publishers of works had rights deriving from the common law of property.
The first known use of the term intellectual property dates to this time, when a piece published in the Monthly Review in 1769 used the phrase. The first clear example of modern usage goes back as early as 1808, when it was used as a heading title in a collection of essays; the German equivalent was used with the founding of the North German Confederation whose constitution granted legislative power over the protection of intellectual property to the confederation. When the administrative secretariats established by the Paris Convention and the Berne Convention merged in 1893, they located in Berne, adopted the term intellectual property in their new combined title, the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property; the organization subsequently relocated to Geneva in 1960, was succeeded in 1967 with the establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization by treaty as an agency of the United Nations. According to legal scholar Mark Lemley, it was only at this point that the term began to be used in the United States, it did not enter popular usage there until passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980.
"The history of patents does not begin with inventions, but rather with royal grants by Queen Elizabeth I for monopoly privileges... 200 years after the end of Elizabeth's reign, however, a patent represents a legal right obtained by an inventor providing for exclusive control over the production and sale of his mechanical or scientific invention... the evolution of patents from royal prerogative to common-law doctrine." The term can be found used in an October 1845 Massachusetts Circuit Court ruling in the patent case Davoll et al. v. Brown. In which Justice Charles L. Woodbury wrote that "only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind and interests are as much a man's own...as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." The statement that "discoveries are..property" goes back earlier. Section 1 of the French law of 1791 stated, "All new discoveries are the property of the author. In Europe, French author A. Nion mentioned propriété intellectuelle in his Droits civils des auteurs, artistes et inventeurs, published in 1846.
Until the purpose of intellectual property law was to give as little protection as possible in order to encourage innovation. Therefore, they were granted only when they were necessary to encourage invention, limited in time and scope; this is as a result of knowledge being traditionally viewed as a public good, in order to allow its extensive dissemination and improvement thereof. The concept's origins can be traced back further. Jewish law includes several considerations whose effects are similar to those of modern intellectual property laws, though the notion of intellectual creations as property does not seem to exist – notably the principle of Hasagat Ge'vul was used to justify limited-term publisher copyright in the 16th century. In 500 BCE, the government of the Greek state of Sybaris offered one year's patent "to all who should discover any new refinement in luxury". According to Jean-Frédéric Morin, "the global inte
In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art through hardball legal tactics. Patent trolls do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities which do not practice their asserted patent may not be considered "patent trolls" when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance. Other related concepts include patent holding company, patent assertion entity, non-practicing entity, which may or may not be considered a "patent troll" depending on the position they are taking and the perception of that position by the public. While in most cases the entities termed "trolls" are operating within the bounds of the legal system, their aggressive tactics achieve outcomes contrary to the origins of the patent system as a legislated social contract to foster and protect innovation.
Patent trolling has been less of a problem in Europe than in the United States because Europe has a loser pays costs regime. In contrast, the U. S. employs the American rule, under which each party is responsible for paying its own attorney's fees. However, after the U. S. Supreme Court's decision in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. on April 29, 2014, it is now easier for courts to award costs for frivolous patent lawsuits. The term patent troll was used at least once in 1993, albeit with a different meaning, to describe countries that file aggressive patent lawsuits; the 1994 educational video, The Patents Video used the term, depicting a green troll guarding a bridge and demanding fees. The origin of the term patent troll has been variously attributed to Anne Gundelfinger, or Peter Detkin, both counsel for Intel, during the late 1990s. Patent troll is a controversial term, susceptible to numerous definitions, none of which are considered satisfactory from the perspective of understanding how patent trolls should be treated in law.
Definitions include a party that does one or more of the following: Purchases a patent from a bankrupt firm, sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent. The term "patent pirate" has been used to describe both patent trolling and acts of patent infringement. Related expressions are "non-practising entity", "patent assertion entity", "non-manufacturing patentee", "patent shark", "patent marketer", "patent assertion company", "patent dealer". Confusion over use of the term patent troll is clear in research and media reporting. In 2014, Price Waterhouse Coopers published research into patent litigation including a study of non-practicing entities including individual inventors and non-profit organisations such as universities. In quoting that research, media outlets such as the Washington Post labelled all non-practicing entities as patent trolls. According to RPX Corporation, a firm that helps reduce company patent-litigation risk by offering licenses to patents it owns in exchange for an agreement not to sue, patent trolls in 2012 filed more than 2,900 infringement lawsuits nationwide.
In addressing the America Invents Act passed by Congress in September 2011 reforming US patent law, U. S. President Barack Obama said in February 2013 that US "efforts at patent reform only went about halfway to where we need to go." The next indicated step was to pull together stakeholders and find consensus on "smarter patent laws."As part of the effort to combat patent trolls, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board was empowered to begin conducting the inter partes review process in 2012. IPR allows an executive agency to review the validity of a patent, whereas such a review could only be conducted before a court; the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the IPR process in 2018. In 2015, 45% of all patent cases in the United States were filed in the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall, 28% of all patents were filed before James Rodney Gilstrap, a court known for favoring plaintiffs and for its expertise in patent suits. However, in May 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC that patent litigation cases must be heard in the state in which the defendant is incorporated, shutting down this option for plaintiffs.
On June 4, 2013, President Obama referenced patent trolls and directed the United States Patent and Trademark Office to take five new actions to help stem the surge in patent-infringement lawsuits tying up the court system. Saying "they don't produce anything themselves, they're just trying to leverage and hijack somebody else's idea and see if they can extort some money out of them," the President ordered the USPTO to require compa
World Intellectual Property Organization
The World Intellectual Property Organization is one of the 15 specialized agencies of the United Nations. WIPO was created in 1967 "to encourage creative activity, to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world". WIPO has 191 member states, administers 26 international treaties, is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland; the current Director-General of WIPO is Francis Gurry, who took office on 1 October 2008. 188 of the UN member states as well as the Cook Islands, Holy See and Niue are members of WIPO. Non-members are the states of Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Solomon Islands and South Sudan. Palestine has permanent observer status; the predecessor to WIPO was the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property, established in 1893 to administer the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. WIPO was formally created by the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, which entered into force on 26 April 1970.
Under Article 3 of this Convention, WIPO seeks to "promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world". WIPO became a specialized agency of the UN in 1974; the Agreement between the United Nations and the World Intellectual Property Organization notes in Article 1 that WIPO is responsible for promoting creative intellectual activity and for facilitating the transfer of technology related to industrial property to the developing countries in order to accelerate economic and cultural development, subject to the competence and responsibilities of the United Nations and its organs the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, as well as of the United Nations Educational and Cultural Organization and of other agencies within the United Nations system. The Agreement marked a transition for WIPO from the mandate it inherited in 1967 from BIRPI, to promote the protection of intellectual property, to one that involved the more complex task of promoting technology transfer and economic development.
Unlike other branches of the United Nations, WIPO has significant financial resources independent of the contributions from its Member States. In 2006, over 90 percent of its income of just over CHF 250 million was expected to be generated from the collection of fees by the International Bureau under the intellectual property application and registration systems which it administers. In October 2004, WIPO agreed to adopt a proposal offered by Argentina and Brazil, the "Proposal for the Establishment of a Development Agenda for WIPO"—from the Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization; this proposal was well supported by developing countries. The agreed "WIPO Development Agenda" was the culmination of a long process of transformation for the organization from one, aimed at protecting the interests of rightholders, to one that has incorporated the interests of other stakeholders in the international intellectual property system as well as integrating into the broader corpus of international law on human rights and economic cooperation.
A number of civil society bodies have been working on a draft Access to Knowledge treaty which they would like to see introduced. In December 2011, WIPO published its first World Intellectual Property Report on the Changing Face of Innovation, the first such report of the new Office of the Chief Economist. WIPO is a co-publisher of the Global Innovation Index. WIPO has established a global information network; the project seeks to link over 300 intellectual property offices in all WIPO Member States. In addition to providing a means of secure communication among all connected parties, WIPOnet is the foundation for WIPO's intellectual property services. WIPO's Economics and Statistics Division gathers data on intellectual property activity worldwide and publishes statistics to the public; the Division conducts economic analysis on how government IP and innovation policies affect economic performance. Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement List of parties to international copyright agreements Member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization Substantive Patent Law Treaty Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy United States and the United Nations World Intellectual Property Day WIPO Lex World Intellectual Property Organization treaties Intellectual property organization Official website List of member states
Fair use is a doctrine in the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement; the 1710 Statute of Anne, an act of the Parliament of Great Britain, created copyright law to replace a system of private ordering enforced by the Stationers' Company. The Statute of Anne did not provide for legal unauthorized use of material protected by copyright. In Gyles v Wilcox, the Court of Chancery established the doctrine of "fair abridgement", which permitted unauthorized abridgement of copyrighted works under certain circumstances. Over time, this doctrine evolved into the modern concepts of fair dealing. Fair use was a common-law doctrine in the U.
S. until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U. S. C. § 107. The term "fair use" originated in the United States. Although related, the limitations and exceptions to copyright for teaching and library archiving in the U. S. are located in a different section of the statute. A similar-sounding principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions but in fact it is more similar in principle to the enumerated exceptions found under civil law systems. Civil law jurisdictions have other exceptions to copyright. In response to perceived over-expansion of copyrights, several electronic civil liberties and free expression organizations began in the 1990s to add fair use cases to their dockets and concerns; these include the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the American Library Association, numerous clinical programs at law schools, others. The "Chilling Effects" archive was established in 2002 as a coalition of several law school clinics and the EFF to document the use of cease and desist letters.
Most in 2006, Stanford University began an initiative called "The Fair Use Project" to help artists filmmakers, fight lawsuits brought against them by large corporations. Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, parody, news reporting and scholarship. Fair use provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor test; the U. S. Supreme Court has traditionally characterized fair use as an affirmative defense, but in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that fair use was not a defense to an infringement claim, but was an expressly authorized right, an exception to the exclusive rights granted to the author of a creative work by copyright law: "Fair use is therefore distinct from affirmative defenses where a use infringes a copyright, but there is no liability due to a valid excuse, e.g. misuse of a copyright." 17 U. S. C. § 107Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.
S. C. § 106 and 17 U. S. C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. The four factors of analysis for fair use set forth above derive from the opinion of Joseph Story in Folsom v. Marsh, in which the defendant had copied 353 pages from the plaintiff's 12-volume biography of George Washington in order to produce a separate two-volume work of his own; the court rejected the defendant's fair use defense with the following explanation: reviewer may cite from the original work, if his design be and to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism.
On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy... In short, we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work. The statutory fair use factors quoted above come from the Copyright Act of 1976, codified at 17 U. S. C. § 107. They were intended by the prior judge-made law; as Judge Pierre N. Leval has written, the statute does not "define or explain contours or objectives." While it "leav open the possibility that other factors may bear on the question, the statute identifies none." That is, courts are entitled to consider other factors in addition to the four statutory factors. The first factor is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether
A patent is a form of intellectual property. A patent gives its owner the right to exclude others from making, using and importing an invention for a limited period of time twenty years; the patent rights are granted in exchange for an enabling public disclosure of the invention. In most countries patent rights fall under civil law and the patent holder needs to sue someone infringing the patent in order to enforce his or her rights. In some industries patents are an essential form of competitive advantage; the procedure for granting patents, requirements placed on the patentee, the extent of the exclusive rights vary between countries according to national laws and international agreements. However, a granted patent application must include one or more claims that define the invention. A patent may include many claims; these claims must meet relevant patentability requirements, such as novelty and non-obviousness. Under the World Trade Organization's TRIPS Agreement, patents should be available in WTO member states for any invention, in all fields of technology, provided they are new, involve an inventive step, are capable of industrial application.
There are variations on what is patentable subject matter from country to country among WTO member states. TRIPS provides that the term of protection available should be a minimum of twenty years; the word patent originates from the Latin patere, which means "to lay open". It is a shortened version of the term letters patent, an open document or instrument issued by a monarch or government granting exclusive rights to a person, predating the modern patent system. Similar grants included land patents, which were land grants by early state governments in the USA, printing patents, a precursor of modern copyright. In modern usage, the term patent refers to the right granted to anyone who invents something new and non-obvious; some other types of intellectual property rights are called patents in some jurisdictions: industrial design rights are called design patents in the US, plant breeders' rights are sometimes called plant patents, utility models and Gebrauchsmuster are sometimes called petty patents or innovation patents.
The additional qualification utility patent is sometimes used to distinguish the primary meaning from these other types of patents. Particular species of patents for inventions include biological patents, business method patents, chemical patents and software patents. Although there is some evidence that some form of patent rights was recognized in Ancient Greece in the Greek city of Sybaris, the first statutory patent system is regarded to be the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474. Patents were systematically granted in Venice as of 1474, where they issued a decree by which new and inventive devices had to be communicated to the Republic in order to obtain legal protection against potential infringers; the period of protection was 10 years.. As Venetians emigrated, they sought similar patent protection in their new homes; this led to the diffusion of patent systems to other countries. The English patent system evolved from its early medieval origins into the first modern patent system that recognised intellectual property in order to stimulate invention.
By the 16th century, the English Crown would habitually abuse the granting of letters patent for monopolies. After public outcry, King James I of England was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for "projects of new invention"; this was incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies in which Parliament restricted the Crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patent to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years. The Statute became the foundation for developments in patent law in England and elsewhere. Important developments in patent law emerged during the 18th century through a slow process of judicial interpretation of the law. During the reign of Queen Anne, patent applications were required to supply a complete specification of the principles of operation of the invention for public access. Legal battles around the 1796 patent taken out by James Watt for his steam engine, established the principles that patents could be issued for improvements of an existing machine and that ideas or principles without specific practical application could legally be patented.
Influenced by the philosophy of John Locke, the granting of patents began to be viewed as a form of intellectual property right, rather than the obtaining of economic privilege. The English legal system became the foundation for patent law in countries with a common law heritage, including the United States, New Zealand and Australia. In the Thirteen Colonies, inventors could obtain patents through petition to a given colony's legislature. In 1641, Samuel Winslow was granted the first patent in North America by the Massachusetts General Court for a new process for making salt; the modern French patent system was created during the Revolution in 1791. Patents were granted without examination. Patent costs were high. Importation patents protected new devices coming from foreign countries; the patent law was revised in 1844 - patent cost was lowered and importation patents were abolished. The first Patent Act of the U. S. Congress was passed on April 10, 1790, titled "An Act to promote the progress of
A contract is a legally-binding agreement which recognises and governs the rights and duties of the parties to the agreement. A contract is enforceable because it meets the requirements and approval of the law. An agreement involves the exchange of goods, money, or promises of any of those. In the event of breach of contract, the law awards the injured party access to legal remedies such as damages and cancellation. In the Anglo-American common law, formation of a contract requires an offer, consideration, a mutual intent to be bound; each party must have capacity to enter the contract. Although most oral contracts are binding, some types of contracts may require formalities such as being in writing or by deed. In the civil law tradition, contract law is a branch of the law of obligations. At common law, the elements of a contract are offer, intention to create legal relations and legality of both form and content. Not all agreements are contractual, as the parties must be deemed to have an intention to be bound.
A so-called gentlemen's agreement is one, not intended to be enforceable, "binding in honour only". In order for a contract to be formed, the parties must reach mutual assent; this is reached through offer and an acceptance which does not vary the offer's terms, known as the "mirror image rule". An offer is a definite statement of the offeror's willingness to be bound should certain conditions be met. If a purported acceptance does vary the terms of an offer, it is not an acceptance but a counteroffer and, therefore a rejection of the original offer; the Uniform Commercial Code disposes of the mirror image rule in §2-207, although the UCC only governs transactions in goods in the USA. As a court cannot read minds, the intent of the parties is interpreted objectively from the perspective of a reasonable person, as determined in the early English case of Smith v Hughes, it is important to note that where an offer specifies a particular mode of acceptance, only an acceptance communicated via that method will be valid.
Contracts may be unilateral. A bilateral contract is an agreement in which each of the parties to the contract makes a promise or set of promises to each other. For example, in a contract for the sale of a home, the buyer promises to pay the seller $200,000 in exchange for the seller's promise to deliver title to the property; these common contracts take place in the daily flow of commerce transactions, in cases with sophisticated or expensive precedent requirements, which are requirements that must be met for the contract to be fulfilled. Less common are unilateral contracts in which one party makes a promise, but the other side does not promise anything. In these cases, those accepting the offer are not required to communicate their acceptance to the offeror. In a reward contract, for example, a person who has lost a dog could promise a reward if the dog is found, through publication or orally; the payment could be additionally conditioned on the dog being returned alive. Those who learn of the reward are not required to search for the dog, but if someone finds the dog and delivers it, the promisor is required to pay.
In the similar case of advertisements of deals or bargains, a general rule is that these are not contractual offers but an "invitation to treat", but the applicability of this rule is disputed and contains various exceptions. The High Court of Australia stated that the term unilateral contract is "unscientific and misleading". In certain circumstances, an implied contract may be created. A contract is implied in fact if the circumstances imply that parties have reached an agreement though they have not done so expressly. For example, John Smith, a former lawyer may implicitly enter a contract by visiting a doctor and being examined. A contract, implied in law is called a quasi-contract, because it is not in fact a contract. Quantum meruit claims are an example. Where something is advertised in a newspaper or on a poster, the advertisement will not constitute an offer but will instead be an invitation to treat, an indication that one or both parties are prepared to negotiate a deal. An exception arises if the advertisement makes a unilateral promise, such as the offer of a reward, as in the famous case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, decided in nineteenth-century England.
The company, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, advertised a smoke ball that would, if sniffed "three times daily for two weeks", prevent users from catching the'flu. If the smoke ball failed to prevent'flu, the company promised that they would pay the user £100, adding that they had "deposited £1,000 in the Alliance Bank to show our sincerity in the matter"; when Mrs Carlill sued for the money, the company argued the advert should not be taken as a serious binding offer. Although an invitation to treat cannot be accepted, it should not be ignored, for it may affect the offer. For instance, where an offer is made in response to an invitation to treat, the offer may incorporate the terms of the invitation to treat. If, as in the Boots case, the offer is made by an action without any