tech. Report on Ball Mill I did it in Cairo University
sample calculationFull description
Full description
a
the hottest write up readily available for you free.Full description
Descripción completa
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
[1893] Q.B. 256 (C.A.) Procedural History:
Appeal from decision of Hawkins J. wherein he held that the plaintiff, Ms. Carlill was entitled to recover ₤100. Parties to the Action:
Appellant: Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [defendants at trial level] Respondent: Ms. Carlill [plaintiff at trial level] Facts:
The Defendants manufactured and sold the “Carbolic Smoke Ball” and advertised in the newspaper that they would pay ₤100 to anyone who uses the medicine as directed and nevertheless contracts a cold, influenza, or other cold disease. The advertisement also claimed that ₤1000 was being deposited into the bank to demonstrate their sincerity. The plaintiff used the ball as directed but contracted influenza. She sued to recover the money promised in the advertisement. Issue:
Does an advertisement to the general public promising to pay money to anyone who does something create a binding contract between the parties? Arguments:
The Defendant argued that: •
• •
Contract was too vague to be enforced; o No way to check the conditions were met; o You cannot contract with everybody (ie the whole world); o Timeframe not specified; Acceptance had not been communicated to the offeror; There was no consideration: nudum pactum;
Analysis:
Bowen L.J.: How would an ordinary person construe this document? Was it intended that the ₤100 should, if the conditions were fulfilled, be paid? The advertisement says that ₤1000 is lodged at the bank for this purpose. Therefore the statement was not a mere puff, “I think it was intended to be understood by the public as an offer which was to be acted upon.”
The extravagance of a promise is no reason in law to not enforce a contract. “If this is an offer to be bound, then it is a contract the moment the person fulfils the condition.” Whether notification is required in advertising cases is to be determined by the language of the ad and the nature of the transaction. The law does not require us to measure the adequacy of consideration and inconvenience sustained by one party at the request of another is enough to create consideration. Lindley M.R.: “…the person who makes the offer shows by his language and from the nature of the transaction that he does not expect and does not require notice of the acceptance apart from notice of the performance.” Ratio:
Advertisements of unilateral contracts are treated as offers. Where the language is clear that an ordinary person would construe an intention to offer, anyone who relies on this offer and performs the required conditions thereby accepts the offer and forms an enforceable contract. Held:
Yes the contract was binding and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff. Appeal Dismissed.
₤100
to the
Obiter Dicta / Notes:
Bowen L.J. considered how the ordinary person would construe the intention of the offer – rather than the subjective intention of the offeror or the offeree. Word Count: 463 [Note – I left out the ‘legal rules section’ seemed redundant with the analysis. I also left out the ‘cause of action’ section as it was redundant with the ‘arguments’ and the facts.]