Law Of Contract Case Study

The question is about the law of contract. For example Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball. The manufacturers had published the products on newspaper advertisements. Based on this action, the advertisement is invitation to treat. However, in this case it can be consider as unilateral offer whereby the offeror doesn’t know who is going to accept the offer. It is because this case does contain promise which can be an offer. However, Miss Carlill won the case because the judge evaluated this case as a contract which is acceptance by conduct.
It is a contract because the Miss Carlill accepted the smoke ball by consumes it. Since Miss Carlill willing to lose her money to consumer the smoker ball after her consideration. Through her action, the legal relationship has formed. Under the S2 (a) of the Contract Act 1950 defines the term proposal as a

Which the agreement was binding because when spouses have separated it is generally considered that they do intend to be bound by their agreement and the written agreement was signed for further evidence of an intention to create legal relation.
In my opinion, without any intention to create legal relation the both parties cannot sue each other as in case of Balfour v Balfour (1919). It is because the contract is not be enforceable, legal and binding
Another example is Edmonds v Lawson (2000). The claimant accepted an offer from a set of chamber of unfunded pupillage. Later, she has argue that she was the worker but the chamber argued that there was no any intention to create legal relationship and no consideration, therefore there were no contract between them.
This case is same as O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc [1983]. In my opinion, even though no money has changed by the hands, there was no intention to create legal relation and consideration but the transaction was beneficial to both sides. So, it indicates that the contract is