Naddy is not feeling well. He takes a rapid antigen test that shows that he has tested positive for COVID-19. Naddy lines up for 5 hours for a PCR test. His results come back 48-hours lat

Contract Law, Bachlelor of Law, Victoria University, Australia
Question:
Naddy is not feeling well. He takes a rapid antigen test that shows that he has tested positive for COVID-19. Naddy lines up for 5 hours for a PCR test. His results come back 48-hours later confirming that he does in fact have COVID-19, more specifically, the omicron strain.
Naddy has a few big months ahead of him. As the ‘king of clay’, he does not want to miss out on the clay-season. This is where he wins most of his matches. With this comes money and valuable ranking points.
He sees an advertisement in the local paper advertising ‘wonder tablets’ as manufactured by Medical Company ABC 123 Pty. Ltd (“MC ABC”). The advertisement states that these tablets help cure many illnesses and conditions within one-week of completing their prescribed dosage, including COVID-19 – both the delta and omicron strains. MC ABC are so confident with their tablets that they offer a full refund plus a $1,000.00 cash payment if the tablets do not cure your particular illness.
The conditions of use are that individuals must take 5 tablets a day for one week and consume with food.
Naddy purchases the tablets and takes them in accordance with the conditions as outlined.
Ten days after taking the tablets Naddy is still feeling unwell. He undertakes another PCR test that confirms that he still has COVID-19, the omicron strain. Further investigation shows that this is the same infection that he contracted some weeks ago; it is not a new occurrence.
Naddy calls MC ABC and demands both a refund and the $1,000.00. They say to Naddy that there is no contract in place. They further explain that their advertisement was merely a marketing exercise and that it was designed to attract global attention and purchases.
Is there a contract in place between MC ABC and Naddy?
With reference to case law, provide your advice to Naddy, your answer should use IRAC structure.
ISSUE, RULE, APPLICATION, CONCLUSION
One of the case laws “Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co” is advisable to mention.
Research:Use both primary and secondary sources
WORD LIMIT OF SIX HUNDRED OR OVER.