FORMATION OF AN AGREEMENT Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Done By: Khattab Imane Supervised by: Mrs.Loubna Foundations of Law - Assignment 1 Marking Criteria B e f o r e : LORD JUSTICE BOWEN LORD JUSTICE LINDLEY LORD JUSTICE A.L. SMITH ____________________ Carlill Plaintiff vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Defendants Sample case summary of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1892] 2 QB 484 Prepared by Khattab Imane Procedural History Carbolic smoke ball Co; manufactured and sold the carbolic smoke ball. The company has developed various advertisements in newspapers offering a reward of 100 pounds to anyone to use the smoke ball three times a day according to the directions and contracting influenza, colds, or any other disease. After seeing the advertisement Carlill (P) bought the ball and use it according to the directions. Carlill contracted the flu and made a claim for the reward. Carbolic smoke ball didn't accept to pay and Carlill proceeded for damages arising from breach of contract. Judgment has been entered for 100 pounds for Carlill and the company appealed . The Fact On 13/01/1891, the advertisement above was inserted in various newspapers: £100 REWARD WILL BE PAID BY THE CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL CO. to any Person who contracts the Increasing Epidemic, INFLUENZA, Cold, or any Diseases caused by taking Cold, after having used the CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL according to the printed directions supplied with each Ball. £1000 IS DEPOSITED with the ALLIANCE BANK, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter. (Carbolicsmokeball.co.uk, 2000) Louisa Carlill; The plaintiff; was a consumer for carbolic smoke ball Co during a period of time. This last believed in... ... middle of paper ... ...o be discharged to the general public and may be browse by public.How would an ordinary person reading this document construe it? His opinion was additional tightly structured and often cited. writing for the majority, command that the contract wasn't with the total world, however rather with people who fulfill the stipulated conditions. He relies on his construction of the document that there is no time limite of the contract.Then the Lord Bowen LJ came with a conclusion that if so :it seems to me that the advertisement was so clear and there was ample consideration for the promise, and that, thus, the plaintiffhave the right to recover her reward. LORD JUSTICE A. L. SMITH His judgment was decided on same basis as Bowen J and Lindley ; it was more General . Appeal was dismissed by all three judges and Mrs.Louisa Carlill finally got the reward of 100 pounds
The lower court dismissed plaintiff’s claims because plaintiff was an “at will” employee. After Laduzinski appealed, the issues were whether the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement, despite that Laduzinski was an at-will employee; and whether the alleged misrepresentations were actionable statements of present fact or non-actionable future promises. The contract between the Alvarez Companies and Laduzinski carried the certain elements of a basic contract since there was an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration. Perez offered plaintiff a position with the Alvarez companies, adding that the company was interested in obtaining plaintiff's contacts to have Before Laduzinski accepted the offer, asked for a two-year contract; However, Perez told plaintiff that his position would be focused on managing the Alvarez companies' workload, since the Alvarez companies has "a lot of clients and were busy. " Laduzinski accepted defendants' offer of at-will employment and quit his job at J.P. Morgan.
Gummow and Bell JJ concluded that clause 1 of the Deed signed Rural’s debts and its interests under the loan agreements to Equuscorp. Their Honours observed that the phrase “other remedies for these matters” located in clause 2 assigned a claim in restitution for money had and received . Heydon J agreed with this decision on similar grounds .
Nurse finders later assigned Drummond to work at a Kaiser facility as a medical assistant. The Plaintiff Sara Montegue was a medical assistant at Kaiser. Drummond and Montague had a disagreement, Montague didn’t think it was much of a big argument to report it. Both Drummond and Montague had a discussion about misplaced lab slips where Drummond raised her voice. A few weeks after the discussion, Montague left her water bottle at work. Montague later drank from her water bottle and her tongue and throat started to burn and she vomited. Drummond admitted that she had poured carbolic acid found in a Kaiser examination room into Montague’s water
Washington Law Review, Vol. 86, Issue 4 (December 2011), pp. 841-874 Barnum, Jeffrey C. 86 Wash. L. Rev. 841 (2011)
In the case, “Facing a Fire” prepared by Ann Buchholtz, there are several problems and issues to identify in determining if Herman Singer should rebuild the factory due to a fire or retire on his insurance proceeds. I believe that this case is about social reform and self-interest. I think that Singer needs to ask himself, what is in the firm’s best economic interests. There are several things to question within this case, what should Herman Singer do and why, should he rebuild the factory or begin retirement, if he rebuilds, should he relocate the firm to an area where wages are lower and what provisions, if any, should Singer make for his employees as well as for the community?
Palmer, Elizabeth A. "The Court and Public Opinion." CQ Weekly 2 Dec. 2000. CQ Weekly. SAGE Publications. Web. 1 Mar. 2000. .
Andrews N, Strangers to Justice No Longer: The Reversal of the Privity Rule under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (2001) 60 The Cambridge Law Journal 353
Having evaluated the current state of English contract law, mainly made up of piecemeal solutions, it can be seen that despite being satisfactory and doing its job, there still remain gaps within the law of contract where unfairness is not dealt with. Moreover, due to the ad hoc nature of those piecemeal solutions, the latter have often produced inconsistent justice and have manifested cases of unfairness. Hence, “a relatively small number of respected Justices have endeavored to draw attention to the fact that the application of a general principle might be useful and even necessary in English law.”
The question is, who should be held accountable? And what should be done? There is clearly no way tobacco will never be outlawed, but I believe there should be tighter restrictions on age limits throughout the world, and restrictions on the materials that are used in cigarette processing. Who is just letting cigarette companies continue to poison people and cause cancer risk? Throughout my essay, I will analyze the affects of cigarette use on the society of the world and the elaborate corruption that keeps cigarette companies in business.
Smokers all over the United States in recent years have brought class-action suits against the tobacco companies. Plaintiffs argue that the tobacco companies had knowledge of the health risks that could be associated with smoking, but they chose to withhold this information from the public. Since they chose to withhold this information the companies should be responsible for the cost of their health problems. Smokers have been rather successful in this endeavor especially since it has been a scientifically proven fact that smoking causes lung cancer. In Florida alone smokers and their families were awarded 200 billion dollars (Thomas ).
The Donoghue V. Stevenson Case 1932 was about the violation of a consumer’s right to safe consumption of a product. Mrs. Donoghue the plaintiff was bought for a drink (Ginger Beer) by a friend in a cafe store. In the process of consuming the drink, a decomposing snail was discovered after it floated from the opaque bottle. The plaintiff had already consumed the drink and was in shock to discover the snail. Mrs. Donoghue was later diagnosed with shock and gastroenteritis. She later sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, seeking fiscal compensation for the damages (Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932]).
Malleson K, ‘Rethinking the Merit Principle in Judicial Selection’ (2006) 33 Journal of Law and Society 126
Based on common law and precedent, the English law of contract has been formulated and developed over a number of years with it’s primary purpose to provide a regulated framework within which individuals can contract freely. In order to ensure a contract is enforceable there are certain elements which must be satisfied, one of which is the doctrine of consideration. Lord Denning famously professed; “the doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side wind” . This is a crucial indication that consideration has long been regarded as the cardinal ‘badge of enforceability’ in the formulation and variation of contracts in English common law.
In Krell v. Henry {1903} a plea of frustration succeeded because the court held that the common purpose for which the contact was entered into, could no longer be carried out. But in the same year for similar set of facts, the Court of Appeal decided in Herne Bay v. Hutton [1903] that the contract had not been frustrated because the "common formation of the contract" had not changed. It clearly was a policy decision which shows the reluctance of the courts to provide an escape route for a party for whom the contract ha...
Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials by Andrew Le Sueur, Maurice Sunkin and Jo Murkens (Paperback - 12 Aug 2010) chapter 8 p 368-418