Henry David Thoreau decided to remove himself from his ordinary life in society‚ and relocated himself to an area outside the town Concord. His once typical life now became that of a forest dweller. He built himself a quaint little home near Walden Pond. He chose to approach a life of simplicity by building his own home‚ living in the forest gathering his own food and fending for himself in essentially all aspects of his life. Ezra Pond makes a claim that Thoreau is demonstrating his indifference
Premium Henry David Thoreau Concord, Massachusetts Walden
contract with the whole world? 2. Was the advertisement by Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.‚ rewarding 100 pounds to any person who uses the product (smoke ball) as directed for a given period and still get contracted to influenza‚ colds or other diseases a "mere puff"/ “nudum pactum” ? Analysis From my view‚ I agree with the judgement of the issue that the advertisement was not a unilateral offer to the world but an offer restricted to those who acted upon the terms contained in the advertisement claim the reward
Premium Invitation to treat Contract Contract law
“The Carlile V Carbolic Smoke ball Company is considered a landmark in English Law of Contract” Analyise the above statement by explaining the facts of the case and by discussing in detail three legal principles which were upheld in the case. In the late 1800’s it was common for English Businesses selling medicinal products to make promises about the various illnesses that their products could cure. One such firm The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company‚ created the “Smoke Ball’
Premium Contract Invitation to treat Influenza
promising their customers to pay them the difference if their products are more expensive than other supermarket). As these agreements can be in verbal‚ written or implied form‚ it is often vague and unclear in whether the agreement is legally intent or a puff to attract people’s attention. Therefore‚ the role of court is to identify the initial
Premium Contract Contract law Contractual term
consideration. Held: (Application). There was a binding contract. Carlill successful. Lindley LJ - The ad was an express promise - to pay 100 pounds to anyone who contracts flu after using the ball three times daily x 2 weeks. • The ad was not a mere puff: b/c of this statement “1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank‚ shewing our sincerity in the matter” - proof of sincerity to pay • Promise is binding even though not made to anyone in particular - a unilateral offer - ie. “offers to anybody
Premium Contract Invitation to treat Contract law
Chapter 7 the terms of the contract 1. When contract is made orally‚ not all oral statement will amount to a term some are just ‘mere puffs’. These statements will never provide any form of remedy. 2. Mere puff只是单纯的吹嘘，是一种statement of opinion‚ 不构成任何的representation或term 3. 三种不同的terms：conditions‚ warranties‚ and innominate terms * CONDITIONS: important terms form the main structure of the contract. If breach‚ repudiate the contract and claim the damage * WARRANTIES: minor terms ancillary(辅助)
Premium Contract law Contract Contractual term
Explain the facts‚ issues and reason in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. FACTS The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a product called the "smoke ball". It claimed to be a cure for influenza and a number of other diseases‚ in the context of the 1889-1890 flu pandemic (estimated to have killed 1 million people). The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube attached. It was filled with carbolic acid (or phenol). The tube would be inserted into a user’s nose and squeezed at the bottom
Premium Invitation to treat Contract Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
1. Critical Analysis of “Carlill Vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Case” 2. What role “Ad-Idem” plays in formation of a valid contract? CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1. What is there product? ……3 2. Promotion of Carbolic Smoke Ball ……3 3. The Case- Carlill Vs Carbolic Smoke Ball case ……4 2. Case Analysis 1. What is Contract? ……5 1. Offer ……5 2. Acceptance of the offer ……6 3. Constituted good
Premium Contract
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] Q.B. 256 (C.A.) Facts The Defendants were a medical company named “Carbolic Smoke Ball”. Who manufactured and sold a product called the "smoke ball"‚ a cure for influenza and a number of other diseases. The company published advertisements in the Pall Mall Gazette and other newspapers on November 13‚ 1891‚ claiming that it would pay £100 to anyone who got sick with influenza after using its product three times a day for two weeks‚ according to the
Premium Contract Invitation to treat
Assignment Lecturer: Jessica Pereira Name: Minghui Weng Monash ID: 24918814 Q: Can Elsie take action against The Promenade’s management? The issue is whether a customer can take action against the property owner for negligence. If the case satisfies the duty of care owed‚ the breach of standard of care and the damage simultaneously‚ Elsie can sue the Promenade’s management for negligence. As is was explained in Donoghue v Stevenson 1‚ if the Elsie would closely and directly affected by the Promenade’s
Premium Duty of care Reasonable person Tort