Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Case Analysis

1329 Words3 Pages

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

Open Document