Source: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company , judgement of Lindley LJ
But there is another view. Does not the person who acts upon this advertisement and accepts the offer ♦ put himself to some inconvenience at the request of the defendants? Is it nothing to use this ball three times daily for two weeks according to the directions at the request of the advertiser? Is that to go for nothing?
I tried ELU. Am I right that this is a negative interrogative, and that Lindley LJ is just asking rhetorically: 'Does
not the person .... put himself to some inconvenience ...'?
Why or why not should not be situated where I have inserted ♦ (ie the lozenge)? What differs?
PS: This Reddit post explicates this older syntax.