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 |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) 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 difference)
|
Revision as of 16:42, May 17, 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.