Ahnaf Rahman Siam 1711501630 - Final Assignment Law200 PDF

Preview

Summary

Law...

Description

Name: Ahnaf Rahman Siam ID: 1711501630 Section: 12

Discuss the case - 'Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Company' and evaluate the decision given the court. Also draw a comparison of this case with 'Patridge v Crittenden' and draw out the underlying differences between them. Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Company: The 'Carbolic Smoke Ball' was created by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co to prevent users from getting influenza or other illnesses. The company's advertised that: “The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company will pay a 100-pound reward to anyone who contracts the rising outbreak of influenza, colds, or any disease caused by catching a cold after following the written directions, use the ball three times a day for two weeks provided with each ball. A deposit of 1,000 pounds has been made with the Alliance Bank on Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter.” Mrs. Carlill purchased one of the balls after seeing the advertisement and used it according to the instructions. She then got the flu and claimed the reward. The company refused to pay. Mrs. Carlill filed a claim for the prize.

Issues There were four major concerns raised: 1. Is it correct that the contract between the parties has some binding effect? 2. Is a formal notice of acceptance needed under the contract in question? 3. Is it true that Mrs. Carlill was required to notify the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company of her acceptance of the offer? 4. Is it correct that Mrs. Carlill gave something in consideration for the 100-pound reward given by the company?

Analysis Defendant’s arguments: The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company claimed that their offer had no binding effect to form a legal contract. Their argument was that the words used in the commercial did not constitute a proper promise since the terms of the advertisement were too

vague to form a contract. Second, they said that there was no time limit set and that there was no way to monitor how the smoke ball (product) was being used by customers. For example, a dishonest customer may not have used the product properly and then accuses the company of failing to deposit the money according to the offer. Third, there was no contract because forming a binding contract requires communication of intention to accept. Carlill didn't directly or implicitly accept the offer in this situation, nor did he do so by some explicit act. As a result, it is clear that the advertisement was merely a marketing strategy, and the company had no intention of entering into any kind of contract in the meantime making an offer to the whole world.

Plaintiff’s arguments: On the other hand, the plaintiff argued that the promise was not vague and that the deal was constructed in such a way that it was clear that if the product was ineffective, the company would compensate a certain amount. In order to make it easier, the company had also deposited a significant sum of money in the Alliance bank account. As a result, depositing the money indicates one side's desire to actually form an agreement. The plaintiffs also claimed that the money used to purchase the carbolic smoke ball was a consideration. The ad was not an empty boast. In reality, it contained the majority of the essential characteristics of a contract, specifically a Unilateral Contract. As a result, the company must uphold its part of the contract.

Held: The appeal of the defendant was rejected, and the Plaintiff was entitled to 100 pounds. The Court recognizes that in the case of vague advertisements, language about payment of a reward is usually a puff, which carries no enforceability. Defendant, on the other hand, mentioned a deposit of £1000 in their advertising as a sign of their honesty in this case. The Court determined that Defendant's offer to reward was a commitment backed by their own sincerity when they did so.

Comparison Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Company

Partridge v Crittenden

Offer made through the advertisement

No offer made through the advertisement. It was an invitation to treat

The defendant was guilty because they made a public announcement which is considered as an offer.

The defendant wasn't guilty because it wasn't an offer to sale but an invitation to treat

Offer was accepted

offer can't be accepted

Word Count: 714...