Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=December 8, 1892 | |date=December 8, 1892 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|facts=Defendant's advertisement said that if a user of its medicinal product got sick after properly using it, Defendant would pay | |facts=Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. ("Carbolic") released a product that, when ignited, produced [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=carbolic+acid carbolic acid] smoke. | ||
Defendant's 1891 advertisement said that if a user of its medicinal product got sick after properly using it, Defendant ("Carbolic) would pay £100 to the sick person. | |||
|procedural_history=Plaintiff ("Carlill") got the flu after using the smoke ball ; so, she sued for the money damages. | |||
|reasons=The offer was similar to a reward (unilateral contract). | |reasons=The offer was similar to a reward (unilateral contract). | ||
Revision as of 13:01, August 29, 2023
| Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. | |
| Court | England and Wales Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Citation | 1 Q.B. 256 |
| Date decided | December 8, 1892 |
Facts
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. ("Carbolic") released a product that, when ignited, produced carbolic acid smoke.
Defendant's 1891 advertisement said that if a user of its medicinal product got sick after properly using it, Defendant ("Carbolic) would pay £100 to the sick person.Procedural History
Plaintiff ("Carlill") got the flu after using the smoke ball ; so, she sued for the money damages.
Reasons
The offer was similar to a reward (unilateral contract).
performance = acceptance.
notice was properly given to Defendant of performance.
There was consideration:
Defendant got its product used.
Plaintiff was inconvenienced.
