Carlill vs Carbolic smoke company
Since a contract is generally referred to as a binding set of promises (agreements) with which courts will enforce, the main issue in Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Company is whether there was a binding contract between the parties or not. A contract requires notification of acceptance – Did Mrs Carlill notify Carbolic of the acceptance of the offer and what are the exceptions if any? Did Mrs Carlill provide consideration in exchange for the 100 pounds reward? The first point in this case is, whether the defendants' advertisement was an offer which, when accepted and its conditions performed, constituted a promise to pay, assuming there was good consideration to uphold that promise, or whether it was only a puff from which no promise could be implied, or a mere statement by the defendants of the confidence they entertained in the efficacy of their remedy. According to the law, an agreement establishes the first stage in the existence of as contract. The three main elements of a contractual formation I will endeavor to consider in a bid to ascertain the legality and validity of contract are the following: Offer, Acceptance and Consideration. I wish to advance the conviction that the case of Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Company was a valid contract characterized by elements of a valid contract. OFFER
The most important feature of a contract is that one party makes an offer for a bargain that another accepts. This can be called a 'concurrence of wills' or a 'meeting of the minds' of two or more parties. There must be evidence that the parties had each from an objective perspective engaged in conduct manifesting their assent, and a contract will be formed when the parties have met such a requirement.] An objective perspective means that it is only necessary that somebody gives the impression of offering or accepting contractual terms in the eyes of a reasonable person, not that they actually did want to contract. Where a product in large quantities is advertised for in a newspaper or on a poster, it is generally regarded as an offer, however if the person who is to buy the advertised product is of importance, i.e. his personality etc., when buying e.g. land, it is merely an invitation to treat. In Carbolic Smoke Ball, the major difference was that a reward was included in the advertisement which is a general exception to the rule and is then treated as an offer. Whether something is classified as an offer or an invitation to treat depends on the type of agreement being made and the nature of the sale. However, this case is handled as unilateral contract which is defined as an exchange of a promise for an act. A unilateral contract is one in which one party has obligations but the other does not. Unilateral contracts sometimes occur in sport in circumstances where a reward is involved. Party A offers a reward to Party B if they achieve a particular aim. If Party B is successful they get the reward but if they are unsuccessful they receive no reward and equally they have no obligation to Party A. Such similar legal principles about unilateral contracts arose from the case of Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Co. Advertisements of unilateral contracts are treated as offers. Where the language is clear that an ordinary person would construe an intention to offer, anyone who relies on this offer and performs the required conditions thereby accepts the offer and forms an enforceable contract. The defendant may have advanced the argument that the offer was too vague to form the basis for a binding agreement, in that it had no time limit within which the person has to catch the epidemic. There are three possible limits of time to this contract. The first is, catching the epidemic during its continuance; the second is, catching the influenza during the time you are using the ball; the third is, catching the influenza within a reasonable time after the expiration of the two weeks during which you...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document