Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
m (Lost Student moved page Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. to Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.: Conform to English case naming standards (no period for "v"))
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Case Brief
{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=In the Court of Appeal
|court=England and Wales Court of Appeal
|citation=1 Q.B. 256 (1893)
|citation=1 Q.B. 256
|date=1893
|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 a certain amount to sick person. Plaintiff got sick after using the product and sued for the money.
|reasons=The offer was similar to a reward (unilateral contract).


performance = acceptance.


'''Facts''': Defendant's advertisement said that if a user of its medicinal product got sick after properly using it, Defendant would pay a certain amount to sick person. Plaintiff got sick after using the product and sued for the money.
notice was properly given to Defendant of performance.


'''Issue''': Was there a contract?
There was consideration:


'''Holding''': Yes, there was a contract and Defendant was liable for it.
Defendant got its product used.


'''Reasons''':
Plaintiff was inconvenienced.
* The offer was similar to a reward (unilateral contract).
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
** performance = acceptance.
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co
** notice was properly given to Defendant of performance.
|source_type=Video summary
* There was consideration:
|case_text_source=Quimbee
** Defendant got its product used.
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
** Plaintiff was inconvenienced.
|link=https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/case-summary-carlill-vs-carbolic-smoke-ball-company/20259
|source_type=Summary
|case_text_source=https://lawlex.org/
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSiyuHoit9s
|source_type=Video summary
|case_text_source=The Law Simplified
}}
}}

Revision as of 12:35, 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

Defendant's advertisement said that if a user of its medicinal product got sick after properly using it, Defendant would pay a certain amount to sick person. Plaintiff got sick after using the product and sued for the money.

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.

Resources

Retrieved from "https://www.wikilawschool.net/w/index.php?title=Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Co.&oldid=46671"