Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by LHamel (talk) to last revision by Lost Student) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | |||
|court=In the Court of Appeal | |||
|citation=1 Q.B. 256 (1893) | |||
|date=1893 | |||
|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. | '''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. | ||
| Line 8: | Line 14: | ||
'''Reasons''': | '''Reasons''': | ||
*The offer was similar to a reward (unilateral contract). | * The offer was similar to a reward (unilateral contract). | ||
**performance = acceptance. | ** performance = acceptance. | ||
**notice was properly given to Defendant of performance. | ** notice was properly given to Defendant of performance. | ||
*There was consideration: | * There was consideration: | ||
**Defendant got its product used. | ** Defendant got its product used. | ||
**Plaintiff was inconvenienced. | ** Plaintiff was inconvenienced. | ||
Revision as of 19:01, January 31, 2020
| Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. | |
| Court | In the Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Citation | 1 Q.B. 256 (1893) |
| Date decided | 1893 |
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.
Issue: Was there a contract?
Holding: Yes, there was a contract and Defendant was liable for it.
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.
