Promotional trailers are invitations to treat, not contractual offers, cannot create binding obligations regarding movie content

The SC held that promotional trailers are unilateral invitations to treat, not contractual offers, and cannot create binding obligations regarding movie content. The Court distinguished between the trailer (mere advertisement) and the actual service transaction (ticket purchase for movie viewing). Since trailers don't constitute offers or promises, their content variations from the final movie don't amount to service deficiency or unfair trade practice. The Court emphasized that artistic services inherently involve creative discretion and substantial variations. The consumer protection complaint regarding missing trailer content in the movie was dismissed, with the SC setting aside findings of service deficiency and unfair trade practice.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legal implications of a promotional trailer (promo) or teaser.
2. Whether a promo creates contractual obligations.
3. Whether excluding content shown in a promo from the final movie constitutes an unfair trade practice.
4. Deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. Unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Summary:

1. Legal Implications of a Promotional Trailer:
The court examined whether a promotional trailer creates any contractual relationship or obligations. It was held that promotional trailers are unilateral and do not qualify as offers eliciting acceptance. Therefore, they do not transform into promises or agreements enforceable by law. It was also determined that the facts do not indicate the adoption of an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. Contractual Obligations:
The court emphasized that a promotional trailer is an advertisement meant to encourage viewers to purchase movie tickets, which is an independent transaction from the trailer. The promotional trailer is not an offer and does not create a contractual relationship. It is merely an "invitation to offer" or "invitation to treat."

3. Unfair Trade Practice:
The court considered whether excluding a song shown in a promo from the final movie constitutes an unfair trade practice. The court held that the promo does not fall under any instances of "unfair method or unfair and deceptive practice" as defined in Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No false statement or intent to mislead viewers was found. The burden of proving unfair trade practice was on the complainant, but no cogent evidence was presented.

4. Deficiency of Service:
The court analyzed whether there was a deficiency in the entertainment service provided. It was determined that the complainant's expectation that the song would be part of the movie was based on a misplaced assumption that the promo was an offer or promise. The essential element of an 'offer' or 'proposal' for contract formation was not satisfied. Therefore, no deficiency in service was found as the promo did not create any contractual obligation to include the song in the movie.

5. Unfair Trade Practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
The court held that the ingredients of 'unfair trade practice' under Section 2(1)(r)(1) were not made out in this case. The promo did not make any false statement or intend to mislead viewers. The court also noted that services involving art require a different standard of judgment due to the creative element involved.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the findings of the lower courts that there was a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, and allowed the appeal. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

---