MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Promotional Trailers Do Not Transform Into Promises or Agreements Enforceable by Law: Supreme Cour

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India delves into the legal nature of promotional trailers, examining whether they create contractual obligations or constitute unfair trade practices when their content is not included in the final movie.

Facts and Issues: The appellant, Yash Raj Films, used a promotional trailer featuring a song to advertise the movie “Fan.” The respondent, motivated by the trailer, watched the film expecting to see the song included. When the song was not featured in the movie, she filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complaint was dismissed at the district level but was subsequently upheld by the State and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, leading to this appeal.

Contractual Obligations: The Court emphasized that promotional trailers are unilateral communications that do not constitute legal offers or form contracts. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha stated, “Promotional trailers are unilateral and do not qualify as offers eliciting acceptance, and as such they do not transform into promises, much less agreements enforceable by law.”

Unfair Trade Practice: Regarding the claim of unfair trade practice, the Court found that the promotional trailer did not misleadingly promise the inclusion of the song in the movie. The judgment clarified, “The facts do not support a finding of unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

Freedom of Artistic Expression: The judgment also recognized the inherent artistic freedom in film production, noting that decisions on content inclusion are at the discretion of filmmakers and should be considered in evaluating allegations of deceptive marketing practices.

Decision: The Supreme Court overturned the lower courts’ decisions, ruling that the promotional trailer did not create a contractual obligation and its content not appearing in the final film did not amount to an unfair trade practice. The appeal by Yash Raj Films was allowed.

Date of Decision: 22nd April 2024

YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs AFREEN FATIMA ZAIDI & ANR.

 

Latest Legal News