Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Case Study

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company - Case Study ExampleThere must be an prolong from one party and its acceptance by the other party. Also, there should be an exchange of consideration and willingness by parties to enter a legally binding relationship.2 However, the cut backing parties can vary the terms of the cut down such(prenominal) as by waiving the requirement for the communication of an acceptance as is the case when sellers make ads to the general cosmos through the media the public responds by performing the requirements. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (suspect) was a manufacturer of the carbolic so-and-so puffinesss that had responded to a flu pandemic that had claimed the lives of more than a million people. They made an advertisement in the play out Mall Gazette and other media offering to reward any buyer with 100 who would buy and practise the smoke balls according to their directives of three times daily for two weeks and contract any disease such as influ enza, colds, etc.3 After seeing the ad Carlill (the plaintiff) bought the smoke balls according to the direction specified by the conjunction of three times a day for almost two months. She contracted influenza and claimed for the reward from the company. However, the defendant refused to give the reward prompting the plaintiff to seek beg intervention. This case was determined in the court of appeal after the company decided to appeal the earlier courts ruling in favour of the plaintiff. The legal issue, in this case, was whether the ads by the defendant constituted an offer for a valid contract having waived the right to be notified of the acceptance of the offer with a purpose of attracting as many buyers of the smoke ball as possible across the nation.4 There were other issues whether the case met the basis of a legal contract such as consideration, intention to form a legally binding agreement and determining whether a person could make a valid contract with the general publi c.