Carlill vs. Carbolic Case and Relevance to Nepalese Law
Assignment on the case of Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd
a) Explain whether there was any contract made between Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Ball or not? Give reason.
Yes, there was contract made between Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd. The advertisement was placed in newspaper and said that the smoke ball product would prevent influenza if the buyers used it as directed and in spite of this if the buyer catches influenza than the company would give £100 to the user as compensation. So this is the case of a general offer (section 10, Nepalese Contract Act 2000). When both the parties legally obey the terms of condition of this offer than the contract is created. In this case, anyone who accepts the condition by buying the product and uses it as directed is an offeree and the company is the offerer while £100 is the amount that is given to the offeree if the conditions are not met i.e. if the buyer catches influenza. So Ms Carlill entered into the contract with Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd as soon as she bought the smoke balls and used it as directed. It was a contract and following points can be summarized supporting it:- • the advertisement was clearly an offer • the terms and conditions were clear • offer was duly accepted by Ms Carlill when the purchase was made and acts performed accordingly • no notice of acceptance was required But if the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd had withdrawn the offer before Carlill used or reacted publicly to the use of the smoke ball than there would not have been a contract.
b) Do you agree that Ms Carill cannot accept the offer? Why?
I do not agree that Ms Carlill cannot accept the offer. This is because the advertisement was a general offer that anyone could accept regardless of age, gender, occupation or anything else (unless and until they were of unsound mind or minor) and as the condition was that the buyer had to follow the instruction and
a) Explain whether there was any contract made between Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Ball or not? Give reason.
Yes, there was contract made between Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd. The advertisement was placed in newspaper and said that the smoke ball product would prevent influenza if the buyers used it as directed and in spite of this if the buyer catches influenza than the company would give £100 to the user as compensation. So this is the case of a general offer (section 10, Nepalese Contract Act 2000). When both the parties legally obey the terms of condition of this offer than the contract is created. In this case, anyone who accepts the condition by buying the product and uses it as directed is an offeree and the company is the offerer while £100 is the amount that is given to the offeree if the conditions are not met i.e. if the buyer catches influenza. So Ms Carlill entered into the contract with Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd as soon as she bought the smoke balls and used it as directed. It was a contract and following points can be summarized supporting it:- • the advertisement was clearly an offer • the terms and conditions were clear • offer was duly accepted by Ms Carlill when the purchase was made and acts performed accordingly • no notice of acceptance was required But if the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd had withdrawn the offer before Carlill used or reacted publicly to the use of the smoke ball than there would not have been a contract.
b) Do you agree that Ms Carill cannot accept the offer? Why?
I do not agree that Ms Carlill cannot accept the offer. This is because the advertisement was a general offer that anyone could accept regardless of age, gender, occupation or anything else (unless and until they were of unsound mind or minor) and as the condition was that the buyer had to follow the instruction and