Basic Business Law for Carbolic Smoke Ball Company -myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theBasic Business Law for Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. Answer: Facts of the case Carlil Smoke Ball Co. (Def) had made to pay 100 pounds to the person who contracts flu after using smoke ball. The Carlil Smoke ball Co. Asserted to cure for influenza and the other diseases. The smoke ball was rubbers Carlil (plaintiff) used the Smoke ball but contact flu. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co produced the 'Carbolic Smoke Ball' that is designed to avert users suffering influenza or related disease. The ad for the product was as follows: Carlil Smoke Ball Co. (Def) will pay a reward of 100 pounds reward to an individual who contracts the growing epidemic influenza, colds, or any disease from cold, subsequent to using the ball three times daily for two weeks as per the directions given with each ball. Further the advert stated that a sum of 1,000 pounds is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, in regard of performance in the matter(McKendrick, 2014). Mrs Louisa Elizabeth Carlill purchased the balls and used it as per the mentioned direction, three times a day, from November 20, 1891, to January 17, 1892, while she contracted influenza. Due to this she claimed the compensation; where The Company declined to pay, even after getting a notice from the solicitor(ACL,2013). Arguments of the plaintiff Mrs. Carlil sued the company arguing existence of contract between the parties while considering her confidence in the product. The advertisement made by Carlil Smoke Ball is a valid offer and was not an empty swank. It was made to the public and an individual does the particular act there is a contract. Performance of the act comprise acceptance for which further communication is not important. In case of an open offer, nothing can be introduced supplementary than the fulfillment of the conditions. Such an offer doesnt require a notice for fulfilling the condition. There is a binding contract and the terms were not indistinct and unsure(Jalil, 2011). Arguments of the defendant Carbolic Smoke Ball Co said that there was no binding contract and the advertisement expressed an intention, that doesnt create a legal obligation. The advertisement was unclear to constitute a contract, as there was no consideration from the plaintiff. The supposed contract enables an individual to steal and use the balls in order to claim the reward. In order to perform a contract, there needs to be communication of purpose to accept the offer. According to Carbolic Smoke ball simply performing an act in private is not enough to consider it as a contract(Knapp, Crystal Prince,2016). Reason for the decision of the case It was noted that the advertisement constituted an offer. There was a binding contract. The offer was too unclear to constitute an offer due to an absence of fixed time limit for catching influenza. The intention behind the advertisement was clear that directly states the purpose for creating legal relationship. Decision of the court I do agree with the judgment given by Lord Justice Lindley on the following grounds: The advertisement in its plain meaning was meant for the community and to be read by the public. The purpose was to instigate sales and to attract people to use smoke ball. For the reason an offer has to be made to the world at large. The contract would be made with those who fulfill the condition attached with it(Smits, 2017). It is not possible to be informed of acceptance of the offer, and the performance of act. The Consideration exists at the time when sale was made. Carbolic Smoke ball has clearly stated its intention in the advertisement. The purpose was to create a legal obligation. There was consideration for some reason to promote their sale. The intention is pretty much clear. The situation was not vague and clearly states a commitment to pay a sum in case of non-fulfillment of mentioned situation (McKendrick,2014). An offer can be made to the whole world will be fulfilled as and when an individual fulfill the obligation. There is no necessity to notify the acceptance - There is no need for notification of acceptance in case of an open offer. Anyone can accept the offer under such a situation. The offeror will be responsible to fulfill all the obligations attached with it. An inference need to be made from the transaction itself in order to perform the condition. This condition doesnt attract notification. Furthermore, the act was not a mere puff. Lord Justice Lindley stated that - the deposit of a sum with the bank showcases genuineness. This would be an insensitive thing to guarantee such sums to individuals unless possible to confirm their method of using it(Poole, Devenney Shaw-Mellors,2017). References ACL, (2013). Carlill v Carbolic Smoke ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256.(ONLINE). Retrieved from: https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/carlill.html Accessed on: 9 October 2017 Jalil, A. (2011). Clarification of rules of acceptance in making business contracts.J. Pol. L.,4, 109. Knapp, C. L., Crystal, N. M., Prince, H. G. (2016).Problems in Contract Law: cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law Business. McKendrick, E. (2014).Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK). Poole, J., Devenney, J., Shaw-Mellors, A. (2017).Contract Law Concentrate: Law Revision and Study Guide. Oxford University Press. Smits, J. M. (Ed.). (2017).Contract law: a comparative introduction. Edward Elgar Publishing.