LWBowerman and another v ABTA 1996

Bowerman and another won the case. Basically, the key issue of the case was whether the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) had made an offer that could be accepted with their widely publicised "ABTA promise" to refund holiday expenses fully if booking with an ABTA member. In the ABTA's handbook the refund of the holiday insurance premium was explicitly stated to be not refundable. The central issue of the case was very similar to that of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893). In that case it was judged that in certain circumstances adverts could be held to be offers capable of acceptance by members of the public. In the ABTA case it was similarly held that the ABTA promise could be held to be an offer that was capable of acceptance by members of the public. In this case acceptance would be completed upon booking a holiday with an ABTA member and therefore when this occured a contract would be formed between the member of the public and the ABTA to fully reimburse holiday expenses in certain circumstances such as the insolvency of the ABTA member.

Again, well done Jon Bain :)

thanks mr jonbain. i quit f4 this semester and ll do in dec 2012. my doubts were cleared by ur explanation. F4 is interesting subject.