L3: Case Law Analysis & Unilateral Contracts Flashcards
Carlill v CarbolIc Smoke Ball Company (1893)
What is a Unilateral Contract ?
This is where the offer doesn’t require any counter promise but requires that the offeree shall do or refrain from doing something, its accepted by the doing of, or refraining from, the requested act and the result is the unilateral contract.
What is the main legal issue in this case ?
Whether the contract was too vague to be enforced?
What was the court’s judgment on this legal issue in this case ?
Contract isn’t too vague. It was clear from the advert that if anybody used the CSB 3 times a day for two weeks but still caught the flu, he would be entitled to a reward. This is only whilst CSB is in use. Those who used the ball before and the caught the flu several weeks after aren’t said to be protected.
What were the subsidiary legal issues in this case ?
-Whether there was an intention to create legal relations? Was it intended as mere sales puff or definite promise/offer?
-Whether an effective offer can be made to all the world in general?
-Whether acceptance had to be notified to the offeror in such circumstances?
-Whether there was consideration provided to support the promise?
If there was a contract, at what moment did it come into existence for this case ?
The contract came into existence when the buyer first used the smoke ball, accepting the company’s offer.
What was the consideration supplied by Carlill?
The purchase of the smoke ball and the inconvenience of using it as instructed i.e. applying the smoke ball to her nostrils three times a day for a fortnight
If the smoke ball had been bought by Carlill’s friend and loaned to her, would it have
made any difference to the result of this action?
The promise/offer of the £100 reward contained in the advert doesn’t require Carlill to have bought the smoke ball, so no it doesn’t make any difference even if it was loaned to her by her friend.
If the Smoke Ball Company published an advertisement on 8 December 1892, in all the
newspapers in which the original offer had appeared, saying that the offer was now
withdrawn, and Henry, who had been using the smoke ball regularly since 20
November, contracted influenza on 10 December, would the company be liable?
The company would still be liable
If Carlill had used the smoke ball three times daily for two weeks without knowing
anything about the advertisement offering the reward, and had then caught influenza
and learned of the advertisement through her doctor, could she have recovered the
£100?
Yes, she could’ve recovered £100
Does Carlill’s motive make any difference?
Carlill’s motive doesn’t make any difference in this case
Did the company promise that Carlill would not catch influenza? Were they in breach
of contract when she did?
The company did promise that Carlill would not catch influenza, and they were in breach of contract when she did
