Case Analysis on Carlill V. Carbolic Smokeball Company

2752 Words Aug 6th, 2013 12 Pages
CASE ANALYSIS:

Case: Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256

Introduction:

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Ltd is one of the most leading cases in the law of contracts under common law. Known for both its academic importance and its contribution in the development of the laws relating unilateral contracts, it is still binding on lower courts in England and Wales, and is still cited by judges in their judgements. This research paper aims to critically examine and analyze the facts and the judgement of the case, along with the issues raised in the case and the impact of this case in general. To understand the case better, firstly let us look at the law as it stood before the case.

The law as it stood before the
…show more content…
After the company ignored two letters from her to this effect, she brought a claim to court.
It was decided in the Queen’s Bench that the plaintiff (Carlill) was entitled to the 100 pounds from the company. The company appealed against the decision in the Court of Appeal.

Issues before the court:

* Whether the advertisement was intended to be a promise at all, and whether the words in the advertisement were too vague to form a binding contract. * Whether or not the advertisement is binding, as it is not a contract made with anyone in particular. * Whether communication of acceptance was necessary. * Whether this was a case of Nudum Pactum, that is, whether there was no consideration involved. * Even if it is a contract, would it come under the category of a wagering contract or an insurance contract, thus rendering it void.

Issues which were determined by the court:

The court indicated that they did not need further submissions on the wager or insurance point, as they clearly could not buy this argument from the defendants. However, they identified all the other issues raised in this case as noteworthy, and proceeded to rule on each of them with appropriate reasons and citations.
Decision of the court and reasons given:

The judgement in this case was an unanimous one, with all the three judges, that is, Lord Justice Lindley, Lord Justice Bowen and Lord Justice A L Smith concurring with
Open Document