The Case Of Carlil V. Carbolic Smoke Ball

704 Words2 Pages

The parties did not intend to be legally bound because the agreement was a purely social agreement. Lord Justice Atkin judgement was there was no "intention to effect legal relations". That was because it was an internal agreement between husband and wife, and the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, Mrs Balfour. She did not deny the presumption. If the contract is related to business transaction, the law is already there to make sure all the parties need to follow the rules. We can see this clearly on case of Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball(1983). Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball (1983) A Newspaper advert placed by the defendant stated:-£100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the influenza after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according …show more content…

To Krishnan for RM 50,000. In both example Lee Chong and George willingly made an offer to give a reward as a gift to anyone who find his puppy and to sell the Honda Accord. So, due to the certain terms, both of them are ready to follow and keep the promise that they already made. But all terms and contracts must be fulfilled for a contract to be formalised. The contract can be considered not successful if any failure to follow the required term .In Sri Kajang Rock Products Sdn Bhd v Maybank Finance Bhd the high court stated that: “To constitute a valid contract there must be separate and definite parties thereto; those parties must be in agreement, that is there must be consesnsus ad idem; those parties must intend to create legal relations in the sense that the promises of each side are to be enforceable simply because they are contractual promises and the promises of each party must be supported by

Open Document