Carlill v. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. The case of Carlill v. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company‚ centred around an advertisement which was placed in the Pall Mall Gazette on November 13‚ 1891. The advertisement was entered by The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company and was promoting a “medical preparation”1 which the company had developed‚ called the Carbolic Smoke Ball. The advertisement clamed that “During the last epidemic of influenza many thousand carbolic smoke balls were sold as preventatives
Premium Contract Invitation to treat Offer and acceptance
Case name Case facts What it links to Rookes V Barnard Rookes sued the union officials‚ including Mr Barnard‚ the branch chairman. Rookes said that he was the victim of a tortious intimidation that had used unlawful means to induce BOAC to terminate his contract. The strike was alleged to be the unlawful means. -The case was almost immediately reversed Miliangos V George Frank Textiles George Frank Ltd was a Swiss textile producer who sold and delivered textiles to Miliangos‚ textile
Premium Case law Stare decisis Ratio decidendi
Explain the effect terms in a contract. Implied terms are not stated in a contract but are introduced in a contract by a statute. 1. The handset will correspond with description supplied at the time of sale. This is an implied term by the sales of good act as it has to correspond with the description on the box. Also statute would protect the customer and it should be what is said on the box. The sales of good act states where there is a sale of good by description there is an implied
Premium Contract Sales Contractual term
Bank and Trust to see if he could get a long term loan for the S.B.H Farms. He talked to a loan officer about getting a long-term loan for building hog houses‚ buying livestock‚ and for expanding the farm operations. The McIlory Bank and Trust agreed to loan him $175‚000.00 on short term promissory notes which all the owners of S.B.H. Farms had to sign. While all the owners of S.B.H. Farms were at the bank‚ they had an oral discussion about the long-term loans for the farm. With no set amount‚ no interest
Premium Term Loan Interest
conclusive Carlill v Carbolic An offer can be made to the whole world. Unilateral offers may require communication of the acceptance after the consideration Felthouse v Bindley Silence is not acceptance Empirnall Holdings v Machon Where an offeree‚ with a reasonable opportunity to reject the offer of goods or services‚ takes the benefit of them under circumstances which indicate they were to be paid for‚ the tribunal of fact may hold that the offer was accepted according to its terms. Butler Machine
Premium Contract Contract law
Contract Law Cases The Offer Meeting of minds: Clarke v Earl of Dunraven and Mount Earl: Yacht races. Letters sent in Communication (in writing‚ speech and conduct): Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co: pay back 100 if you get influenza. Deposit 1000 The Acceptance: Strictly in response to
Premium Contract
Introduction: The question of whether contract law can absorb technological change without the need for distinctive guidelines‚ presuppositions or similar rules is highly dependent on the effects of the amendments to the Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (NSW) (“ETA”). The impact of the ETA on traditional common law principles varies depending on the level of certainty and predictability available in the circumstances and how the law applies. The suitable amount of consistency is likely to vary
Premium Contract Common law
Sargant J held that Mr Balfour has no obligation to support his wife. Carllill vs carbolic smoke ball co. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a product called the "smoke ball". It claimed to be a cure for influenza and a number of other diseases‚ in the context of the1889-1890 flu pandemic (estimated to have killed 1 million people). The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube attached. It was filled with carbolic acid (or phenol). The tube would be inserted into a user’s nose and squeezed at the
Premium Contract
Introduction In the present essay the problem covered will be The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977‚ known as UCTA and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999‚ known as UTCCR. As things stand at present‚ consumers are faced with two pieces of legislation in a vital area of contracts. The main areas analysed will consist of a historical background of the Act and the Regulations‚ a comparison between them but also the inconsistencies and overlaps which exist regarding these two layers
Premium Management Learning German language
Privity of Contract LGST101 Business Law Professor George Shenoy Group Members: Ue Mu En‚ Esther Goh Yue Lin‚ Sylvia Fong Li Chu Sabina Sun Chao Ng Shi Ya 1 Content Page 1. Case Summary 2. Can Brad sue Jennifer? 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Validity of Contract Breach of Contract Brad cannot sue Jennifer Brad can sue Jennifer 3. Can Angelina sue Jennifer? 3.1 3.2 Angelina cannot sue Jennifer Angelina can sue Jennifer 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 Contract (Rights of
Premium Contract Common law Breach of contract