consideration. Held: (Application). There was a binding contract. Carlill successful. Lindley LJ - The ad was an express promise - to pay 100 pounds to anyone who contracts flu after using the ball three times daily x 2 weeks. • The ad was not a mere puff: b/c of this statement “1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank‚ shewing our sincerity in the matter” - proof of sincerity to pay • Promise is binding even though not made to anyone in particular - a unilateral offer - ie. “offers to anybody
Premium Contract Invitation to treat Contract law
Chapter 7 the terms of the contract 1. When contract is made orally‚ not all oral statement will amount to a term some are just ‘mere puffs’. These statements will never provide any form of remedy. 2. Mere puff只是单纯的吹嘘，是一种statement of opinion‚ 不构成任何的representation或term 3. 三种不同的terms：conditions‚ warranties‚ and innominate terms * CONDITIONS: important terms form the main structure of the contract. If breach‚ repudiate the contract and claim the damage * WARRANTIES: minor terms ancillary(辅助)
Premium Contract law Contract Contractual term
Explain the facts‚ issues and reason in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. FACTS 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 the 1889-1890 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 bottom
Premium Invitation to treat Contract Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
1. Critical Analysis of “Carlill Vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Case” 2. What role “Ad-Idem” plays in formation of a valid contract? CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1. What is there product? ……3 2. Promotion of Carbolic Smoke Ball ……3 3. The Case- Carlill Vs Carbolic Smoke Ball case ……4 2. Case Analysis 1. What is Contract? ……5 1. Offer ……5 2. Acceptance of the offer ……6 3. Constituted good
Premium Contract
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] Q.B. 256 (C.A.) Facts The Defendants were a medical company named “Carbolic Smoke Ball”. Who manufactured and sold a product called the "smoke ball"‚ a cure for influenza and a number of other diseases. The company published advertisements in the Pall Mall Gazette and other newspapers on November 13‚ 1891‚ claiming that it would pay £100 to anyone who got sick with influenza after using its product three times a day for two weeks‚ according to the
Premium Contract Invitation to treat
Assignment Lecturer: Jessica Pereira Name: Minghui Weng Monash ID: 24918814 Q: Can Elsie take action against The Promenade’s management? The issue is whether a customer can take action against the property owner for negligence. If the case satisfies the duty of care owed‚ the breach of standard of care and the damage simultaneously‚ Elsie can sue the Promenade’s management for negligence. As is was explained in Donoghue v Stevenson 1‚ if the Elsie would closely and directly affected by the Promenade’s
Premium Duty of care Reasonable person Tort
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
Once upon a time‚ under a sumac tree in Bingle Bog‚ a frog sang the night long‚ every night‚ in a horrendous voice. The forest animals were distraught and at their wits end. They tried stopping his crass ‘Minstrelling’ with sticks and stones‚ insults and bricks but to no avail. In sheer dismay they cried for divine intervention. To all this‚ the frog remained impassive and resolute‚ intent on airing his heart’s glad ‘elation.’ One night‚ when in the sky hung a pale moon‚ a nightingale perched on
Premium Singing Vocal range Human voice
falsity‚ or is reckless as to its truth‚ with the intention that the Pl should act on it‚ and which causes damage as a result = A separate tort (and not a negligence action) Representation of Fact Oral‚ written‚ conduct‚ intention‚ opinion Not: Mere puff Silence (unless a half truth‚ failure to correct‚ or legal or equitable duty to disclose) Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Whether misrep. of fact = objective test BUT ambiguous statement given Def’s meaning Def. knew representation was false
Premium Tort Negligence Tort law
Just because there is an agreement between people‚ it does not signify that a contract exists. The creation of legal relations is a doctrine of the English contract law that is defined as an intention is to enter a legally binding agreement or contract. An agreement‚ which is defined as the meeting of minds with the acceptance and understanding of mutual legal rights and duties as to particular actions or accountability‚ is legally enforceable only if the contracting parties may be deemed by the
Premium Contract