The Case Of Tracy's Carlill V. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

1. As per the facts of the problem, Amanda had sent an offer to Tracy via e-mail for her ‘’Purple BV Handbag’’ of $9000.Tracy then had agreed to selling the handbag to Tracy but later on denied selling it. The key issue in this situation is whether a valid contract for the ‘Purple BV Handbag’ had been formed between the two parties and if it had, is there any breach of contract laws by Tracy.

The rights and obligations that Tracy and Amanda have will depend on whether they had made an enforceable contract. For a valid contract to be formed there has to be an offer, acceptance and consideration. In this case, I can confirm that Amanda is the offeror who had replied to Tracy’s
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) case, Carbolic stated specific terms such as promising an exact payment if people still could contract influenza whilst using the smoke ball on a newspaper advertisement. This advertisement was deemed to be an offer and not just a mere puff. Tracy has just Handbag to give and she cannot provide it for everyone as otherwise stated in the case as Carbolic had the resources put in a bank account to provide for its offer. Tracy’s had insufficient details and so it can be deemed an invitation to treat, referring to the Partridge v. Crittenden (1968) where an advertisement with insufficient details was held to be an invitation to treat. Therefore, it can be concluded that Amanda made the first offer on Monday, 11th April 2016 with the email she sent to
Using the literal rule, the word ‘’sure’’ indicates that Tracy had agreed to the terms of the offer sent by Amanda. This statement is not a counter offer as Tracy just offered a method to make the transaction easier for herself and had no intention of declining the offer at that point of time.However,Tracy then changed her mind about selling the Handbag to Amanda and decided to send Amanda a letter saying ‘’I am sorry, but I changed my mind and I can’t sell the bag to you’’ This letter arrived on Thursday, 14 April 2016, before Amanda had checked her voicemail. Using Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation (1955) case it was held that the regular postal rule did not apply for instantaneous means of communications such as a telex. Instead, acceptance occurs where the message of acceptance is read. To conclude, since the acceptance message of Tracy was not read by Amanda on her answering machine the contract has not been formed.Therefore, Tracy’s letter on 14th April is a revocation of acceptance. Since the communication of acceptance has not been completed as Amanda was unable to listen to the voice message sent by Tracy on the 12th of April. Therefore, using the postal rule,the revocation is valid on the 14th of April when it was posted which was before the