Editing Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
notice was properly given to Defendant of performance. | notice was properly given to Defendant of performance. | ||
There was | There was consideration: | ||
Defendant got its product used. | Defendant got its product used. | ||
Plaintiff was inconvenienced | Plaintiff was inconvenienced. | ||
|comments=*In the late 1800s, using the smoke ball of carbolic acid to protect oneself against influenza [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-06/carbolic-smoke-ball-scam-health-medicine-marketing/101720358 was a scam]. | |comments=*In the late 1800s, using the smoke ball of carbolic acid to protect oneself against influenza [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-06/carbolic-smoke-ball-scam-health-medicine-marketing/101720358 was a scam]. | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link |