This article examines the origins of the doctrine of puffery in Britain, in the first decades of its development during the nineteenth- and early twentieth centuries. The doctrine is a curious legal construct. Usually invoked as a defence, it identifies futile speech, typically of a seller, which does not give rise to liability. It operated, as it still does, in several fields of law. The analysis is not a traditional doctrinal one but rather a cultural legal study, which places the doctrine within the history of mass advertising, with two interrelated goals. First, following a review of developments based on primary sources, required given the scant literature on puffery, this article proposes a new interpretation of the doctrine as a legal mode of ridicule. While traditionally viewed as an instance of caveat emptor that supported commerce, the doctrine also involved a legal inferiorization of advertisements - taken as the paradigmatic instance of the sales pitch. Second, this article explores the interrelations between the history of law and the history of advertising, and demonstrates its productive potential for legal analysis with cases concerned with quack medicines. In the process, it offers a new reading of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball and other cases. In conclusion, this article suggests that ridicule was a refusal to acknowledge the power of advertising and particularly its appeals to consumers’ imagination rather than reason, even as advertising was given legal licence.

中文翻译：

---

广告时代的法律嘲讽：吹捧、骗术和大众市场

本文考察了英国吹胀学说在 19 世纪和 20 世纪初发展的最初几十年的起源。该学说是一种奇怪的法律结构。通常作为一种抗辩理由，它识别出无用的言论，通常是卖方的言论，不会引起责任。它仍然在多个法律领域运作。该分析不是传统的教义分析，而是文化法律研究，它将学说置于大众广告的历史中，具有两个相互关联的目标。首先，鉴于关于吹捧的文献很少，本文基于一手资料对发展进行了回顾，本文提出了对该学说的新解释，将其作为一种法律上的嘲讽模式。虽然传统上被视为支持商业的购买警告的例子，该学说还涉及对广告的法律劣化——作为推销的典型例子。其次，本文探讨了法律史与广告史之间的相互关系，并展示了其对与庸医有关的案件进行法律分析的生产潜力。在此过程中，它提供了对 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball 和其他案件的新解读。总之，本文认为，嘲笑是拒绝承认广告的力量，尤其是它对消费者的想象力而不是理性的吸引力，即使广告获得了合法许可。本文探讨了法律史与广告史之间的相互关系，并展示了其对与庸医有关的案件进行法律分析的生产潜力。在此过程中，它提供了对 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball 和其他案件的新解读。总之，本文认为，嘲笑是拒绝承认广告的力量，尤其是它对消费者的想象力而不是理性的吸引力，即使广告获得了合法许可。本文探讨了法律史与广告史之间的相互关系，并展示了其对与庸医有关的案件进行法律分析的生产潜力。在此过程中，它提供了对 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball 和其他案件的新解读。总之，本文认为，嘲笑是拒绝承认广告的力量，尤其是它对消费者的想象力而不是理性的吸引力，即使广告获得了合法许可。