Carlill V. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Case

1. This case was held in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Melbourne.

2. Dodds Streeton J is the judge of this case. Her title displays that she is Honourable Judge and she is in control.

3. Medium neutral citation refers to citing of unreported judgement. A citation that would be used if the case used reported report would be - Mildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty v Canon Finance Australia Ltd [2006] + court identifier number + judgement number and the names of the judges along with the date of judgement with the word unreported in front.

4. A unilateral contracts involves one party paying or promising another party something in return of preforming a certain task.

5. The Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company case established the definition. It made an add which rewarded money to use their product 3 times per day. If

they were to contract certain diseases the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company would issue them a reward. After Carlill used them as directed she contracted sickness and made a claim for the reward. They denied her the money and she sued them for a breach of contract.

6.

The Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company case defined a unilateral contract and is now a regular statement for what a unilateral contract is.

7. Dodds -Stretton J regarded Mr Blancato/ the defendant as more reliable, consistent and credible. It was only available for those who BISG dealers and was only once the rental agreement was completed.

8. The judge dismissed the claim of the plaintiff as there was not a unilateral contract in place and that the plaintiff was committed to its rental agreement as a customer.

9. The Plaintiff claims that he achieved his first rental agreement contract and was entitled to purchase the equipment for $1 after the rental period expired. Later the Canon Australia business dealership was terminated and the defendant refused to sell the office equipment to the plaintiff. He then claims that this is in fact a breach of contract.

10. The plaintiff failed due to not being able to firmly establish the existence of a unilateral contract. If the defendant did not construct a contract, then he has no liabilities to withhold. He was unable to provide enough evidence on the contract and was leaving aspects

out.

11. The case citation is - Mildura Office Equipment and Supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australia Ltd [2006] VSC 42 (16 February 2006). The outcome is that the case should be dismissed as there was no established contract and Mr. Jansenn was unreliable. Kellem JA felt that the presentation was uncertain and there was a lack of overall transparency. She decided that words of Mr. Blancato can’t be viewed as a promise.

12. I believe that the case was judged correctly. All the information and agreements from the plaintiff was very diverse and not straight forward there was a lack of consistency and dependability. There was a lack of evidence for a unilateral contract. In my opinion there was no solid promise set in place. The lack of a physical contract with precise words leaves all the evidence to be very vague and uncertain. The plaintiff was defiantly at fault with no critical supporting information.